Ecological Impact Assessment

PROPOSED ALBANY WIND ENERGY FACILITY & GRID INFRASTRUCTURE NEAR MAKHANDA (GRAHAMSTOWN), EASTERN CAPE PROVINCE.

DRAFT ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

PREPARED FOR:

ALBANY WIND POWER (PTY) LTD Waterfront Business Park, Building 5 – Ground Floor, 1204 Humerail Road, Humerail, Port Elizabeth, 6001, Eastern Cape Province Tel: +27 (0)41 506 4900 PREPARED BY:

PORT ELIZABETH 36 Pickering Street, Newton Park, Port Elizabeth, 6001, Eastern Cape Province Tel: +27 (0)41 393 0700 www.cesnet.co.za

FEBRUARY 2020 Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

This Report should be cited as follows: CES, February 2020: Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure: Ecological Assessment Report.

REVISIONS TRACKING TABLE

REPORT TITLE: ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

REPORT VERSION: DRAFT REPORT

PROJECT NUMBER: P40700009

NAME RESPONSIBILITY DATE

Dr Greer Hawley Report Writer February 2020

Ms Rosalie Evans GIS Mapping & Data Updates February 2020

Mr Craig Sholto-Douglas Initial Site Survey (fauna) & Report Writer November 2016

Mr Luke Kemp Herpetologist Report Assistant November 2016

Ms Ayanda Zide Initial Site Survey (flora) & Report Writer November 2016

This document contains intellectual property and propriety information that are protected by copyright in favour of CES and the specialist consultants. The document may therefore not be reproduced, used or distributed to any third party without the prior written consent of CES. The document is prepared exclusively for submission to Albany Wind Power (Pty) Ltd in the Republic of South Africa, and is subject to all confidentiality, copyright and trade secrets, rules intellectual property law and practices of South Africa.

CES i Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY

The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Regulations, promulgated in terms of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA, Act no. 107 of 1998 as amended) dated 8th of December 2014, were amended on the 7th of April 2017. In terms of Appendix 6 of the Amended EIA Regulations (2014, and subsequent 2017 amendments), a Specialist Report must contain all the information necessary for a proper understanding of the nature of issues identified, and must include–

(1) A SPECIALIST REPORT PREPARED IN TERMS OF THE AMENDED NEMA EIA REGULATIONS (2014, AND SUBSEQUENT 2017 AMENDMENTS) MUST CONTAIN – (a) Details of- (i) The specialist who prepared the report; and (ii) The expertise of that specialist to compile a specialist report including a curriculum Page iii, Page iv vitae; and Appendix A-6 (b) A declaration that the specialist is independent in a form as may be specified by the competent authority; (c) An indication of the scope of, and the purpose for which, the report was prepared; Chapter 1 (cA) An indication of the quality and age of the base data used for the specialist report; (cB) A description of the existing impacts on the site, cumulative impacts of the proposed Chapter 4 and development and levels of acceptable change; Chapter 8 (d) The duration, date and season of the site investigation and the relevance of the season to Chapter 1 the outcome of the assessment; (e) A description of the methodology adopted in preparing the report or carrying out the Chapter 1 and specialised process inclusive of equipment and modelling used; Appendix A-1 (f) Details of an assessment of a specific identified sensitivity of the site related to the proposed activity or activities and its associated structures and infrastructure inclusive of a site plan Chapter 6 identifying alternatives; Chapter 4, (g) An identification of any areas to be avoided, including buffers; Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 (h) A map superimposing the activity including the associated structures and infrastructure on Chapter 6 the environmental sensitivities of the site including areas to be avoided, including buffers; (i) A description of any assumptions made and any uncertainties or gaps in knowledge; Chapter 1 (j) A description of the findings and potential implications of such findings on the impact of the Chapter 8 proposed activity or activities; (k) Any mitigation measures for inclusion in the EMPr; (I) Any conditions for inclusion in the environmental authorisation; (m) Any monitoring requirements for inclusion in the EMPr or environmental authorisation; (n) A reasoned opinion- Chapter 9 (i) Whether the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised; and (iA) Regarding the acceptability of the proposed activity or activities, and (ii) If the opinion is that the proposed activity, activities or portions thereof should be authorised, any avoidance, management and mitigation measures that should be included in the EMPr, and where applicable, the closure plan; (o) A description of any consultation process that was undertaken during the course of Chapter 1 preparing the specialist report; (p) A summary and copies of any comments received during any consultation process and None to date. where applicable all responses thereto; and (q) Any other information requested by the competent authority. None to date.

CES ii Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

THE PROJECT TEAM

Dr Greer Hawley Report Writer

Dr Greer Hawley is a Principal Consultant with twelve (12) years’ experience and she is based in the East London branch. She has a BSc degree in Botany and Zoology and a BSc Honours in Botany from the University of Cape Town. She completed her PhD thesis (Microbiology) at Rhodes University. Greer has been involved in a number of diverse activities. The core academic focus has been in the field of taxonomy both in the plant and fungal kingdom. Greer's research ranges from fresh water and marine algae, estuarine diatoms, plant species classification in the fynbos and forest vegetation and fungal species identification and ecology. Greer has been involved in environmental and biodiversity impact assessments and environmental and biodiversity management projects both in South Africa and other African countries. Greer has recently assisted with the completion of the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (2019), the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan and assisted with the generation of the Western Cape State of the Coast Report. She is currently involved with developing the Environmental Management Framework for the King Cetshwayo District Municipality.

Ms Rosalie Evans GIS Mapping & Data Updates

Rosalie is a Senior Environmental Consultant with five (5) and a half years’ experience and she is based in the Port Elizabeth branch. She holds a BA degree in Social Dynamics with majors in Geography and Psychology as well as a BA Honours degree in Geography and Environmental Studies, both from Stellenbosch University. Rosalie's honours dissertation analysed the role of small grains in soil carbon sequestration in the agricultural sector of the Western Cape. Rosalie completed the Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment Procedure Short Course by Coastal & Environmental Services and the Department of Environmental Science Rhodes University as well as the Estuary Management Short Course by Nelson Mandela University (NMU). In addition, Rosalie is a member of the Land Rehabilitation Society of Southern Africa (LaRSSA) and a member of the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA). Her main focuses include the general Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) process, project management, the Public Participation Process, NEMA Section 24 (G) Applications and associated reports, GIS Mapping, and Agriculture and Soils Assessments.

Ms Ayanda Zide Initial Site Survey (flora) & Report Writer

Ayanda holds a BSc in Botany, Microbiology and Chemistry and a Bsc (Hons) in Botany where her thesis focused on identifying and characterising galls and gall forming insects and associated pathogens (Fungi) on the mangrove species Avicennia marina. Courses in her honours year included Diversity Rarity and Endemism (DRE), Pollination Biology, Estuarine Ecology, Rehabilitation Ecology, a Stats course and a short GIS course. Her research interests lie in biological invasion, conservation, rehabilitation ecology, plant biotechnology and water research. Ayanda conducts vegetation and impact assessments that guide proposed developments to reduce their impacts on sensitive vegetation. As part of these surveys she identifies and maps the vegetation communities and areas of high sensitivity. She has worked as a botanical assistant on the Lesotho Highlands Development Authority botanical baseline survey and has conducted groundtruthing surveys and ecological assessments for developments in the Eastern Cape.

Mr Craig Sholto-Douglas Initial Site Survey (fauna) & Report Writer

Craig holds a BSc (Env Sci and Zoology) and a BSc (Hons) in Environmental Science. He is currently completing his MSc in Environmental Science, focussing on factors influencing survivorship of Portulacaria afra (Spekboom) cuttings, in attempts to restore degraded lands in the Greater Addo Elephant National Park. Academic research projects include a leopard (Panthera pardus) population survey, large vertebrate monitoring projects, and invasive plant species analyses. Craig has consulting experience in the restoration ecology and natural resource management fields, with focus on the Subtropical Thicket Restoration Project (STRP). Since working at EOH CES, Craig has been involved in a number of ecological specialist studies, including: Fairewood Estate Ecological Specialist Study Grahamstown, Eastern Cape; Ukomeleza Wind Energy Facility Ecological Assessment, Eastern Cape, South Africa; PPC Mining Floristic and Faunal Scoping Report, Eastern Cape, South Africa; Uhambiso Glen Hurd Road Upgrade Faunal Specialist Study, Eastern Cape,

CES iii Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

South Africa; Eskom 400kV Powerline Faunal and Avifauna Impact Assessment, Western Cape, South Africa; Kariega River Causeway Ecological Assessment, Eastern Cape, South Africa; Nxuba WEF Ecological Ground-truthing, Eastern Cape, South Africa; and the Department of Environmental Affairs Quion Point Avifaunal Impact Assessment. Craig also conducts bird and bat monitoring for Wind Energy Facilities.

Mr Luke Kemp Herpetologist and Report Assistant

Luke has a B.Sc. Rhodes student currently working on a project to determine the effects of domestic animal grazing on reptile and amphibian diversity. Luke completed a FGASA accredited Standard and Advanced snake handling course as well as advanced first aid for snake bite through African Snakebite Institute. Luke has conducted reptile and amphibian surveys in the Northern Cape, Eastern Cape and Mpumalanga, mapping reptiles and amphibians and collecting samples for the Port Elizabeth Museum (Bayworld). Luke is currently on the panel of judges for reptile identification on the Animal Demography Unit (ADU).

SPECIALIST DECLARATIONS OF INDEPENDENCE

I, Greer Hawley-McMaster, declare that I am an independent consultant and have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the proposed development of the Albany Wind Energy Facility and Grid Infrastructure in the Eastern Cape Province, application or appeal in respect of which I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of my performing such work.

Full Names: Greer Hawley-McMaster Date: February 2020

I, Rosalie Ann Evans, declare that I am an independent consultant and have no business, financial, personal or other interest in the proposed development of the Albany Wind Energy Facility and Grid Infrastructure in the Eastern Cape Province, application or appeal in respect of which I was appointed other than fair remuneration for work performed in connection with the activity, application or appeal. There are no circumstances that compromise the objectivity of my performing such work.

Full Names: Rosalie Ann Evans Date: February 2020

CES iv Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 7 1.1. BACKGROUND ...... 7 1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 7 1.2.1. Albany Wind Energy Facility ...... 7 1.2.2. Albany Grid Infrastructure ...... 8 1.3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...... 9 1.4. TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 9 1.5. APPROACH ...... 10 1.6. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS ...... 11 2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION ...... 12 3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 14 3.1. GEOLOGY AND LANDFORM ...... 14 3.1.1. Topography ...... 14 3.1.2. Geology ...... 15 3.2. CLIMATE ...... 15 3.3. LAND COVER ...... 16 4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT ...... 17 4.1. SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTE (SANBI) VEGETATION ...... 17 4.2. SITE VEGETATION ...... 18 4.2.1. Species of Conservation Concern ...... 24 4.2.2. Alien Species ...... 25 4.2.3. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP) ...... 26 4.3. PROTECTED AREAS ...... 27 4.4. SURFACE WATER ...... 27 5. FAUNAL SPECIES AND HABITATS ...... 31 5.1. REPTILES, AMPHIBIANS,AND MAMMALS ...... 31 5.1.1. Reptiles ...... 31 5.1.2. Amphibians ...... 35 5.1.3. Mammals ...... 36 6. SITE SENSITIVITY ...... 38 6.1. PROPOSED ALBANY WEF AND POWERLINE INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 38 7. ALBANY WEF IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 40 7.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 40 7.2. PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE ...... 40 7.3. CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 40 7.4. OPERATIONAL PHASE ...... 48 7.5. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE ...... 49 8. ALBANY GRID INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT ...... 50 8.1. INTRODUCTION ...... 50 8.2. PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE ...... 50 8.3. CONSTRUCTION PHASE ...... 50 8.4. OPERATIONAL PHASE ...... 57 8.5. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE ...... 58 9. ALBANY WEF CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 59 9.1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALBANY WEF...... 59 9.2. SPECIALIST STATEMENT ...... 59 9.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ALBANY WEF DEVELOPMENT ...... 60 9.3.1. Construction Phase Recommendations ...... 60 9.3.2. Operational Phase Recommendations ...... 62 9.3.3. Decommissioning Phase Recommendations ...... 62 9.4. CONCLUSION ...... 63 10. ALBANY GRID INFRASTRUCTURE: CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 64

CES 5 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

10.1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GRID INFRASTRUCTURE ...... 64 10.2. SPECIALIST STATEMENT ...... 64 10.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GRID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT ...... 65 10.3.1. Construction Phase Recommendations ...... 65 10.3.2. Operational Phase Recommendations ...... 67 10.3.3. Decommissioning Phase Recommendations ...... 67 10.4. CONCLUSION ...... 67 11. REFERENCES ...... 68

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1: Locality Map indicating the proposed locations of the Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure...... 7 Figure 1-2: Combined Layout Map of the proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure...... 9 Figure 3-1: Geology Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites...... 15 Figure 3-2: Land Cover Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites...... 16 Figure 4-1: South African Vegetation Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites...... 18 Figure 4-2: ECBCP Terrestrial CBA Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites...... 27 Figure 4-3: Surface Water Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites and Surrounds...... 30 Figure 6-1: Ecological Sensitivity Map of the Proposed Albany WEF Site and Surrounds...... 39 Figure 6-2: Ecological Sensitivity Map of the Proposed Albany Grid Infrastructure Site and Surrounds...... 39

LIST OF PLATES Plate 3-1: Photographs illustrating the general topography of the area...... 14 Plate 4-1: Fynbos Vegetation with Alien Invasive Species, such as Pinus spp and Acacia mearnsii...... 19 Plate 4-2: Alien invasive stands invading rocky outcrop with little grass cover...... 19 Plate 4-3: Alien invasive stands: Acacia mearnsii ...... 20 Plate 4-4: Grassland Thicket Vegetation within the Proposed Site...... 21 Plate 4-5: Euphorbia stellata (A) and Euphorbia spp. (B) and succulent species Crassula spp. (C) and Crassula spp.(D) which were in the rocky outcrops within the Proposed Site...... 22 Plate 4-6: Thicket Fragments within the Grassland Thicket...... 22 Plate 4-7: Thicket Vegetation on the Slopes and Alien Invasive vegetation dominating the flat areas within the Proposed Site...... 23 Plate 4-8: General vegetation found to occur in the Bhisho Thornveld...... 23 Plate 4-9: Cyrtanthus obliquus (A) and Boophane disticha (B) observed within the Proposed Site...... 24 Plate 4-10: Alien Invasive Species Identified within the Proposed Site; Opuntia ficus-indica (A), Echinopsis spachiana (B), Pinus spp (C), Acacia mearnsii (D)...... 25 Plate 4-11: Example 1 Indicating an artificial wetland within the Proposed Sites and surrounds...... 28 Plate 4-12: Example 2 Indicating an artificial wetland within the Proposed Sites and surrounds...... 29 29 Plate 4-13: Example 3 Indicating an artificial wetland within the Proposed Sites and surrounds...... 29 Plate 5-1: Reptile Species Recorded within the Proposed Site and Surrounds...... 35 Plate 5-2: Amphibian Species Recorded within the Proposed Site...... 36

LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Relevant Ecological Legislation...... 12 Table 3-1: Makhanda Climate Table (Source: en.climate-data.org)...... 15 Table 4-1: Vegetation Types within the Proposed Site (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006 and 2018)...... 17 Table 4-2: SCC found during the site investigation. Please note that additional SCC are likely to occur within the Propose Site...... 24 Table 4-3: Alien Invasive Species Found within the Proposed Site, According to the NEM:BA...... 25 Table 4-4: Types of Wetlands which occur within the Proposed Site...... 27 Table 5-1: Reptile SCC within the Proposed Site (ADU)...... 31 Table 5-2: Terrestrial Mammals of Conservation Concern likely to Occur within the Proposed Site...... 37 Table 9-1: Albany WEF Ecological Impacts Summary...... 59 Table 9-2: Albany Grid Infrastructure Ecological Impacts Summary...... 64

CES 6 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

1. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1. BACKGROUND

Albany Wind Power (Pty) Ltd plans to develop, construct and operate a Wind Energy Facility (WEF) and associated grid infrastructure approximately ten (10) kilometres east of Makhanda (previously known as Grahamstown) in the Eastern Cape Province. The project site is situated in the Makana Local Municipality, which forms part of the Sarah Baartman District Municipality, as indicated in Figure 1-1 below. According to the data recorded by Albany Wind Power in the area, this project site appears to have favourable wind conditions to operate a wind farm.

Figure 1-1: Locality Map indicating the proposed locations of the Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure.

1.2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Albany Wind Power is proposing the development of a WEF and associated grid infrastructure, as described in the sections below and indicated in Figure 1-2.

1.2.1. Albany Wind Energy Facility

The proposed Albany WEF will consist of the following:

• Temporary infrastructure including a site camp and a laydown area of approximately 30 m2 per turbine (all to be rehabilitated post-construction). • Up to sixty-six 66 wind turbines with a rotor diameter of up to 170 m, a hub height of up to 130 m and blade length of up to 85 m - each with an output of up to 6 megawatts (MW). • Foundations (up to 550 m²) for each wind turbine.

CES 7 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• A laydown area next to the locations of the proposed wind turbines (3 900 m2 for crane hardstand per turbine). • Areas of approximately 25 m2 for the switchgear and/or transformer at each turbine; • Internal access roads of between 8 m (during operation) and 14 m (during construction, to be partly rehabilitated) wide to each turbine. • Medium voltage (MV) cabling between turbines and the switching station, to be laid underground where technically feasible. • Overhead medium voltage powerlines between turbine rows, where necessary. • Overhead powerlines to connect the facility to the electrical grid. • Existing roads will be used as far as possible. However, where required, internal access roads will be constructed between the turbines. • A temporary area of approximately 90 000 m2 which will include a batching plant, laydown facilities, concrete tower manufacturing and steel tower processing and construction compound.

1.2.2. Albany Grid Infrastructure

In addition, Albany Wind Power plan to develop the following grid infrastructure:

• Option 1 (preferred) - An up to 23000 m2 Independent Power Producer (IPP) Substation (MV/132 kV) which will include, battery storage and site office area, situated in the middle of the site. o The grid connection will be a Loop In, Loop Out (LILO) on the Pembroke-Albany 132 kV line. • Option 2 – Direct connection, via the same corridor, to the potential 132 kV substation, adjacent to the Eskom Albany 132 kV substation, up to 23 000 m2, which will include battery storage and a site office area situated in the middle of the site. • Two (2) collector substations, each 10000 m2, (Collector Substation West and Collector Substation East) will be constructed. • All turbines will connect, via underground MV lines, either directly to the IPP substation or to a collector. Each collector will in turn connect to the IPP substation via MV or 132 KV overhead line(s) within the grid corridor. • Grid corridor width is 500 m wide to allow for manoeuvrability for the final line position within the corridor. • The corridor from Collector Substation West to the main corridor is 170 m in width with a flanking area to accommodate for the line turn in.

CES 8 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Figure 1-2: Combined Layout Map of the proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure.

1.3. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

The Draft Ecological Assessment Report will undergo a Public Participation Process (PPP) during the thirty (30) day public review period of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and accompanying specialist volume. Any comments received, relating to the ecological aspects of the proposed site, will be addressed and included in the Final Ecological Assessment Report, which will be submitted to the competent authorities as part of the Final EIR.

1.4. TERMS OF REFERENCE

The Terms of Reference (ToR) provided for this study are outlined below:

• Review the previous Ecological and Sensitivity study, which was undertaken in 2016, for the area. • Review published literature on the ecology of the area to describe the study site in the context of the region and the Eastern Cape Province as a whole. The following spatial planning tools and references have been consulted: o Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2007) Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs); o Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF, previously the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)) Land Cover Data (2013-14); o SANBI vegetation (Mucina et al., 2019); o South African Geology II spatial data; o Soil and Terrain (SOTER) databases; o South African Protected Areas Database (SAPAD) 4th Quarter (2019); o Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP, 2006-7); o National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA, 2011 and 2014); o National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA, 2019);

CES 9 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

o SA Red Data List; o National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) species list (Act No. 10 of 2004); o Protected tree species list in terms of the National Forest Act (NFA, Act No. 84 of 1998); and the o Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance Act PNCO.

• Describe the study area in terms of land cover, vegetation, likely fauna and habitats. Faunal considerations which include mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. This aspect of the report will specifically include the identification of - o Areas of high biodiversity; o The presence of Species of Conservation Concern (SCC), including sensitive, endemic and protected species; o Habitat associations of the identified fauna and flora; o The presence of areas which are sensitive to invasion by alien species; and o The presence of conservation areas and sensitive habitats, where disturbance should be avoided or minimised.

• An assessment of the potential direct and indirect impacts resulting from the proposed WEF development and grid infrastructure, both within the footprint and the immediate surrounding area; • A detailed description of appropriate mitigation measures and recommendations which can be adopted to reduce negative impacts for each phase of the project, where required; and • Checklists of flora and faunal groups identified in the region to date, highlighting sensitive species and their possible areas of distribution.

1.5. APPROACH

The study site and surrounding areas were described using a two-phased approach. Firstly, a desktop assessment of the site was conducted in terms of current vegetation classifications and biodiversity programmes and plans. This included the consideration of:

• Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2007); • South African Geology II spatial data; • Soil and Terrain (SOTER) databases; • Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2007) Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs); • Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF, previously the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA)) Land Cover Data (2013-14); • South African Protected Areas Database (SAPAD) 4th Quarter (2019); • SANBI vegetation (Mucina et al., 2019); • Subtropical Thicket Ecosystem Programme (STEP, 2006-7); • National Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas (NFEPA, 2011 and 2014); • National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (NSBA, 2004); • Makana Spatial Development Framework (SDF, 2013); • Makana Municipality Integrated Development Plan (IDP, 2017 - 2022); and • Local Authority Notice No. 36 of 2016: Makana Local Municipality: The Spatial Planning and Land Use Management By-Laws (2016 and any amendments).

Further to the above, site investigations were conducted on the 2nd of November 2016 and the 5th of April 2017 to assess the actual ecological state, current land-use, identify potential sensitive habitats and identify plant species associated with the proposed project activities. The site investigations were undertaken in spring and summer as numerous vegetation types bloom during the months of spring and summer which makes observation and identification easier and more accurate. The aim of the site investigations, were to identify the potential impacts which are likely to result from the proposed development.

CES 10 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

1.6. ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

This report is based on currently available information and, as a result, the following limitations and assumptions are implicit:

• This report is based on preliminary assessments, two (2) site investigations, and a few areas within the site are yet to be assessed. • The preliminary assessment was conducted to assess areas which had already been deemed sensitive during the bat pre-construction monitoring of the site. • The project description and design specifications for the proposed WEF and grid infrastructure have not yet been finalised, and they are likely to undergo several iterations and refinements before they can be regarded as definitive. • Descriptions of the natural and social environments are based on limited fieldwork as well as available literature and spatial data.

CES 11 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

2. RELEVANT LEGISLATION

Table 2-1 lists the legislation which is relevant to the proposed development of the Albany WEF and grid infrastructure.

Table 2-1: Relevant Ecological Legislation. TITLE OF LEGISLATION, POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ALBANY WEF & GRID INFRASTRUCTURE OR GUIDELINE • A Scoping and EIA Process is being undertaken for the proposed Albany WEF National Environmental due to the NEMA EIA Regulations Listed Activities identified in Listing Notice Management Act (NEMA, Act 2; No. 107 of 1998) and its • A Basic Assessment (BA) Process is being undertaken for the proposed Albany subsequent amendments Grid Infrastructure due to the NEMA EIA Regulations Listed Activities identified in Listing Notices 1 and 3; National Environmental • This Ecological Assessment Report forms part of the EIR as well as the BAR Management Act (NEMA, Act and complies with Appendix 6 of the NEMA EIA Regulations (2014 and No. 107 of 1998) subsequent 2017 amendments); and Environmental Impact • In terms of Section 28, every person who causes, has caused, or may cause Assessment (EIA) Regulations significant pollution or degradation of the environment must take reasonable (2014 and subsequent 2017 measures to prevent pollution or rectify the damage caused. amendments) National Environmental • The proposed development must conserve endangered ecosystems and Management: Biodiversity Act protect and promote biodiversity; (NEM:BA, Act No. 10 of 2004) • Must assess the impacts of the proposed development on threatened ecosystems; National Environmental • No protected species may be removed or damaged without a permit; and Management: Biodiversity • The proposed site must be cleared of alien vegetation using appropriate Act, Alien and Invasive Species measures. Regulations (2014) o • Appropriate measures must be taken to prevent the pollution of wetlands and water courses; National Water Act (NWA, Act • Riparian zones must be protected; and No. 36 of 1998) and its • Construction within one hundred metres (32 m) of water courses or within subsequent amendments five hundred metres (500 m) of wetlands will require Water Use Authorisation issued by the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS). The central properties within the proposed Albany WEF and grid infrastructure National Forest Act (Act No. 84 sites contain forest patches. In addition, sections of the affected properties to of 1998) and its subsequent the east of the Albany WEF site contain small forest patches (Southern Mistbelt amendments Forest). No part of these forests may be impacted by the proposed development. • The objectives of this Act are to provide for the conservation of the natural Conservation of Agricultural agricultural resources by the maintenance of the production potential of land, by Resources Act (CARA, Act No. the combating and prevention of erosion and weakening or destruction of the 43 of 1983) water sources, and by the protection of the vegetation and the combating of weeds and invader plants. • The objective of this Act is to provide for the protection and conservation of National Environmental ecologically viable areas which represent South Africa’s biological diversity Management: Protected Areas and its natural landscapes and seascapes; Act (Act No. 31 of 2004) and its • The proposed Albany WEF site borders two recognised protected areas, subsequent amendments namely the Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve and the Beggars Bush State Forest • Obligation to ensure that the proposed activity will not result in pollution and Constitution Act (Act No. 108 ecological degradation; and of 1996) • Obligation to ensure that the proposed development is ecologically sustainable, while demonstrating economic and social development.

CES 12 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

TITLE OF LEGISLATION, POLICY IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ALBANY WEF & GRID INFRASTRUCTURE OR GUIDELINE Endangered and Protected • An ecological walk through of the proposed development footprint will be Flora in the 1974 required prior to construction to identify species that require permits for Provincial Nature their removal; and Conservation Ordinance • Permits must be obtained for the removal of species on these lists prior to (PNCO) and subsequent vegetation clearance during the construction phase. amendments National Veld and Forest Fire The proposed Albany WEF may increase the risk of veld and mountain fires within Act (Act No. 101 of 1998) and the proposed site and surrounds. its subsequent amendments The ECBCP main outputs are the terrestrial and aquatic Critical Biodiversity Areas Eastern Cape Biodiversity (CBAs). These include three (3) main management categories: Conservation Plan (ECBCP, • CBA 1 areas should be maintained in a natural state; 2007) – currently being • CBA 2 areas should be maintained in a near-natural state; and updated but updated spatial • CBA 3 areas should be maintained as functional landscapes for biodiversity data is not yet available. functions. The NFEPA project provides strategic spatial priorities for conserving South National Freshwater Africa’s freshwater ecosystems and supports sustainable use of water resources, Ecosystem Priority Areas including rivers and wetlands. The biodiversity conservation target for freshwater (NFEPA, 2011 – 2014) ecosystems in South Africa is 20%, which means that at least 20% of each wetland ecosystem type should be maintained in a natural or near-natural condition.

CES 13 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

3. DESCRIPTION OF THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT

3.1. GEOLOGY AND LANDFORM

The Eastern Cape Province contains a wide variety of landscapes, from the stark Karoo (the semi-desert region of the central interior) to mountain ranges and gentle hills rolling down to the sea. The climate and topography give rise to the great diversity of vegetation types and habitats found in the region.

3.1.1. Topography

The proposed Albany WEF and grid infrastructure sites are characterised by undulating hills. The elevation ranges from 480 to 760 metres above sea level (masl). The proposed sites and surrounds are generally steep with a maximum slope of 43.2% and average slope of 6.7%. Plate 3-1 illustrates the general topography of the project site.

Plate 3-1: Photographs illustrating the general topography of the area.

CES 14 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

3.1.2. Geology

The proposed Albany WEF and grid infrastructure sites are underlain by lithologies of the Witteberg Group and the Grahamstown Formation, as indicated in Figure 3-1. The surrounding lithologies include the Dwyka Group and the Ecca Group.

The Witteberg Group (light brown and light yellow in Figure 3-1), within the proposed Albany WEF and grid infrastructure sites, consist of arenite, shales and diamictite. Whereas the Grahamstown Formation (dark brown in Figure 3-1) primarily consists of silcrete.

Figure 3-1: Geology Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites.

3.2. CLIMATE

Makhanda receives approximately 680 mm of precipitation per annum, with the highest rainfall months of March (autumn) and October (spring). The average minimum temperature is 10.5 C, with the lowest minimum temperatures occurring during the month of July (winter). The average maximum temperature is 23.2 C, with the highest maximum temperatures occurring during the month of February (summer). Climate data is relevant to the agriculture of an area due to the reliance of agricultural lands on enough rainfall and sunlight. In addition, periods of high rainfall increase the likelihood of soil erosion due to runoff.

Table 3-1: Makhanda Climate Table (Source: en.climate-data.org). Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Avg. Temp (°C) 20.7 20.9 20 17.6 15.3 13 12.4 13.5 15.1 16.1 17.9 19.5 Min. Temp (°C) 14.6 15.1 14.4 11.3 8.6 5.9 5.4 6.4 8.5 10 12.2 13.5 Max. Temp (°C) 26.8 26.8 25.7 24 22 20.1 19.4 20.7 21.8 22.3 23.6 25.6 Precipitation (mm) 60 68 75 47 43 33 36 51 61 75 68 66

CES 15 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

3.3. LAND COVER

According to the South African National Land Cover Dataset (DEA, 2013-14), the properties which are affected by the proposed Albany WEF and grid infrastructure sites currently consist of a combination of grasslands, indigenous forest, thicket/dense bush, mature plantations, woodland/open bush, cultivated commercial fields, permanent water, seasonal water and mines 1 (bare), as indicated in Figure 3-2 on the following page.

Figure 3-2: Land Cover Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites.

CES 16 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

4. DESCRIPTION OF THE ECOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT

The proposed Albany WEF and grid infrastructure fall within three (3) biomes, namely the Fynbos Biome (Suurberg Shale Fynbos and Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos), the Savanna Biome (Bhisho Thornveld), and the Albany Thicket Biome (Grahamstown Grassland Thicket, Albany Bontveld and Albany Valley Thicket). In addition, small sections of the affected properties contain patches of Southern Mistbelt Forest, from the Forests Biome. It must however be noted that none of the proposed Albany WEF site falls within the Southern Mistbelt Forest but a small section of the overhead line corridor runs along the edge of one of the Southern Mistbelt Forest patches (dark purple in Figure 4-1).

4.1. SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTE (SANBI) VEGETATION

Mucina and Rutherford (2006) developed the National Vegetation Map as part of a South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI) funded project. The vegetation has subsequently been revised and republished. The latest version was published in 2019 (Mucina et al., 2019). The vegetation map project has two (2) main aims:

1. “To determine the variation in and units of southern African vegetation based on the analysis and synthesis of data from vegetation studies throughout the region, and 2. To compile a vegetation map. The aim of the map was to accurately reflect the distribution and variation on the vegetation and indicate the relationship of the vegetation with the environment. For this reason, the collective expertise of vegetation scientists from universities and state departments were harnessed to make this project as comprehensive as possible.”

The map and accompanying book describe each vegetation type in detail, along with the most important species, including endemic species and those which are biogeographically important. According to vegetation map, six (6) vegetation types will be affected by the current layout of the Albany WEF and grid infrastructure, as indicated in Table 4-1 below.

Table 4-1: Vegetation Types within the Proposed Site (Mucina & Rutherford, 2006 and 2018).

CONSERVATION PROTECTION COLOUR VEGETATION PROPOSED BIOME STATUS & STATUS & IN FIGURE TYPE INFRASTRUCTURE TARGET TOTAL 4-1 28 turbines, ±15% of the overhead line corridor, collector substation (west), ±5% of the IPP substation, ±35% of the Grahamstown Least Poorly temporary laydown area (batching Grassland threatened with protected plant and construction compound), Thicket a target of 19% Albany the associated collector substation Thicket corridor and ±37% of the total internal Biome roads Least Albany Poorly 5 turbines and ±3% of the total threatened with Bontveld protected internal roads. a target of 19% Albany Valley Vulnerable with Moderately ±2% of the total internal roads. Thicket a target of 19% protected 4 turbines, ±12% of the total internal Hardly roads, ±95% of the IPP substation, Least protected ±65% of the temporary laydown area Savanna Bhisho threatened with with a total (batching plant and construction Biome Thornveld a target of 25% of 0.2% compound), potential 132 kV (+2%) substation upgrade, and ±70% of the overhead line corridor.

CES 17 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Well Least protected Suurberg 4 turbines and ±7% of the total threatened with with a total Shale Fynbos internal roads. a target of 23% of 38.4% Fynbos (+6.1%) Biome Moderately Suurberg Least protected 25 turbines, collector substation (east), Quartzite threatened with with a total ±39% of the total internal roads and Fynbos a target of 23% of 15% ±15% of the overhead line corridor. (+16%)

Figure 4-1: South African Vegetation Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites.

4.2. SITE VEGETATION

Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos was observed in the eastern portion of the proposed site, consisting of a mosaic of alien invasive stands, rocky outcrops with bush clumps and fynbos vegetation. The fynbos vegetation found in this area were characterised by species such as Erica spp, Leucodendron salignum, Elytropappus rhinocerotis and Themeda triandra. Oldenburgia grandis was abundant in the rocky areas and tree species, such as Cussonia spicata and Rhus spp, were also found. The area was generally in low to moderate condition, with several SCC present, rocky outcrops, a relatively large area of alien vegetation cover and disturbed areas. A portion of this vegetation, near the valleys, is highly invaded by Acacia mearnsii, which have formed large stands that resemble a forest with little understory.

CES 18 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Plate 4-1: Fynbos Vegetation with Alien Invasive Species, such as Pinus spp and Acacia mearnsii.

Plate 4-2: Alien invasive stands invading rocky outcrop with little grass cover.

CES 19 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Plate 4-3: Alien invasive stands: Acacia mearnsii

Grahamstown Grassland Thicket within the proposed site, consisted of fragmented thicket vegetation, which included tree species such as Scotia afra, Portulacaria afra and SCC such as Sideroxylon inerme, as well as grassland vegetation and rocky outcrops which harboured succulent species, such as Carpobrotus edulis, Crassula spp and Euphorbia spp. This vegetation within the study area of the proposed development varied from degraded to good condition, with a number of SCC occurring in the good areas and a large cover of alien invasive species in the degraded areas.

The higher elevation areas of this vegetation, was mostly in good condition and included rocky outcrops (Plate 4-4 and Plate 4-6). Whilst the sloped and riparian sections of the Grassland Thicket consisted of thicket vegetation. Steep areas are unlikely to be impacted by the proposed turbines and turbine infrastructure. The lower valley river bottoms (see Plate 4-7) of this vegetation (flatter areas) were degraded and had high alien invasion.

CES 20 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Plate 4-4: Grassland Thicket Vegetation within the Proposed Site.

CES 21 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Plate 4-5: Euphorbia stellata (A) and Euphorbia spp. (B) and succulent species Crassula spp. (C) and Crassula spp.(D) which were in the rocky outcrops within the Proposed Site.

Plate 4-6: Thicket Fragments within the Grassland Thicket.

CES 22 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Plate 4-7: Thicket Vegetation on the Slopes and Alien Invasive vegetation dominating the flat areas within the Proposed Site.

A small section of Bhisho Thornveld was observed within the proposed site. This vegetation type was characterised by a combination of grass and a herbaceous layer, which included tree species such as Acacia Karoo, Grewia occentalis and Searsia longispina. The Bhisho Thornveld was relatively degraded and contained few SCC.

Plate 4-8: General vegetation found to occur in the Bhisho Thornveld.

CES 23 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

4.2.1. Species of Conservation Concern

The species list from the site investigation was assessed against the South African Red Data List, the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA, Act No. 10 of 2004) List of Protected Species, DAFF’s List of Protected Tree Species and the 1974 Provincial Nature Conservation Ordinance (PNCO) List of Species, as indicated in Table 4-2.

After the preliminary assessment, Boophane disticha and Cyrtanthus obliquus, which are listed as declining on the South African Red Data List, were recorded to occur within the proposed site (see below). Sideroxylon inerme is listed as a protected tree. Approximately ten (10) species are listed as Schedule 4 species on the PNCO and no species listed on NEM:BA, were found to occur in the study area.

Table 4-2: SCC found during the site investigation. Please note that additional SCC are likely to occur within the Propose Site. SANBI RED PROTECTED FAMILY SCIENTIFIC NAME IUCN PNCO NEMBA NEM:BA LIST TREES Schedule ASPHODELACEAE Aloe striata Least Concern - - - - 4 Schedule IRIDACEAE Aristea ecklonii Least Concern - - - - 4 Schedule AMARYLLIDACEAE Boophane disticha Declining - - - - 4 Schedule APOCYNACEAE Carissa Bispinosa Least Concern - - - - 4 Schedule AIZOACEAE Carpobrotus edulis Least Concern - - - - 4 Schedule AMARYLLIDACEAE Cyrtanthus obliquus Declining - - - - 4 Euphorbia polygona Schedule EUPHORBIACEAE Least Concern - - - - (Euphorbia horrida) 4 Leucodendron Schedule PROTEACEAE Least Concern - - - - salignum 4 Schedule IRIDACEAE Watsonia sp. - - - - - 4 SAPOTACEAE Sideroxylon inerme Least Concern - - - Protected -

Plate 4-9: Cyrtanthus obliquus (A) and Boophane disticha (B) observed within the Proposed Site.

CES 24 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

4.2.2. Alien Species

Numerous alien species were present within the proposed site, especially Acacia spp, where they have formed closed canopies and dense stands. Other alien species were found to occur in various vegetation types.

Table 4-3: Alien Invasive Species Found within the Proposed Site, According to the NEM:BA. SPECIES CATEGORY COMMENT Echinopsis spachiana 1b 1) According to the NEM:BA Category 1b, Listed Species are those Opuntia ficus-indica 1b species listed as such by notice in terms of section 70(1)(a) of the Acacia cyclops 1b Act as species which must be contained. Cirsium Vulgare 1b 2) A landowner upon whose land a Category 1b Listed Invasive Acacia saligna 1b Species occurs and which species is under the landowner's control must: (a) Comply with the provisions of section 73(2) of the Act; and (b) Contain the listed invasive species in compliance with section 75 (1), (2) and (3) of the Act. 3) If an Invasive Species Management Programme has been Acacia mearnsii 2 developed in terms of Regulation 7, a landowner must control the listed invasive species in accordance with such programme. 4) A landowner contemplated in sub-regulation (2) must allow an authorised official from the Department to enter onto the land to monitor, assist with or implement the containment of the listed invasive species, or compliance with the Invasive Species Management Programme contemplated in Regulation 7. Pinus spp - -

Plate 4-10: Alien Invasive Species Identified within the Proposed Site; Opuntia ficus-indica (A), Echinopsis spachiana (B), Pinus spp (C), Acacia mearnsii (D).

CES 25 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

4.2.3. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP)

The Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (ECBCP, 2007) is a first attempt at detailed, low-level conservation mapping for land-use planning purposes. Specifically, the aims of the plan were to map Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) through a systematic conservation planning process. The current biodiversity plan includes the mapping of priority aquatic features, land-use pressures, CBAs and the development of guidelines for land and resource-use planning and decision-making.

The main outputs of the ECBCP are CBAs, which are allocated the following management categories: 1. CBA 1: Maintain in a natural state; and 2. CBA 2: Maintain in a natural or near-natural state.

The ECBCP maps CBAs based on extensive biological data and input from key stakeholders. The ECBCP, although mapped at a finer scale than the National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment (Driver et al., 2005) is still, for the large part, inaccurate and “course”. Therefore, it is imperative that the status of the environment, for any proposed development MUST first be verified before the management recommendations associated with the ECBCP are considered (Berliner and Desmet, 2007). It is also important to note that the ECBCP has been adopted by the Provincial Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT) as a systematic biodiversity plan for the Eastern Cape Province.

According to the ECBCP spatial planning tool, the proposed Albany WEF and grid infrastructure sites are situated in an area which is categorised as a Terrestrial CBA 1 and CBA 2 area (Figure 4-2). The CBA 1 should be maintained in a near natural state, while CBA 2 areas should be kept in a natural or near-natural state. The ECBCP recognizes that some of the areas which are classified as CBAs were in a degraded state. When related to the Biodiversity Land Management Classes (BLMCs), a degraded CBA 1 area should be maintained in a near-natural state. The CBA 1 areas within the proposed site were selected due to the recorded presence of threatened bird and plant species. An Avifaunal Impact Assessment has been conducted to determine the impact that the development have on birds and important bird habitat, therefore this report will focus on the presence of plant biodiversity and the impacts of the proposed development on conservation of threatened plant species. Although these species were not observed on site, they have gone undetected. The list of plant species and comments on their threat status are provide below:

• Agathosma bicornuta: this species is classified at Endangered, with over 50% of the populations having disappeared due to overgrazing. It is highly likely that this specimens recorded in the study area have been lost to overgrazing due to the close proximity of Nompumelelo township. The large number of associated livestock that are kept by this community will have caused high grazing pressure in area surrounding the township. • Faucaria tigrina: this species is classified at Endangered with only 4 known locations around Grahamstown and is therefore endemic to the study area. The decline of the species is associated with urban expansion and overgrazing. • Brachystelma comptum: this species is classified as vulnerable and is known from 5 locations around Grahamstown and is therefore endemic to the study area. Threats to the species include loss of habitat due to alien invasive plant species, urban expansion and overgrazing.

The condition of central sections (lower portion of the site) of the study area was significantly degraded by high levels of alien plant invasion which was found to have altered the vegetation cover in these areas. It is highly unlikely that threatened plant species have managed to survive the high infestation levels.

CES 26 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Figure 4-2: ECBCP Terrestrial CBA Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites.

4.3. PROTECTED AREAS

The Beggars Bush State Forest within the proposed Albany WEF study area, and the Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve borders the proposed site. No turbines or associated infrastructure are proposed within Beggars Bush State Forest. It is therefore unlikely that the proposed Albany WEF will directly impact these nature reserves, although they may be indirectly impacted.

4.4. SURFACE WATER

The NFEPA identifies, numerous wetlands were found to occur within 500 m of the proposed Albany WEF and grid infrastructure sites. Most of these wetlands have been found to be artificial dams. No rivers are located within 100 m of the proposed turbines but the proposed associated infrastructure, including the proposed overhead line corridor, traverses numerous rivers, as indicated in Figure 4-3. Water Use Authorisation, from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS), is required prior to the construction within 100 m of the watercourses and within 500 m of the wetlands. The types of wetlands which occur within the proposed sites are described in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4: Types of Wetlands which occur within the Proposed Site. WETLAND DESCRIPTION A near-level wetland area (i.e. with little or no relief) with little or no gradient, situated on a plain or a bench in terms of landscape setting. The primary source of water is precipitation. Bench Flat Dominant hydrodynamics are bidirectional vertical fluctuations, although there may be limited multidirectional horizontal water flow in some cases. Water exits through evaporation and infiltration.

CES 27 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

WETLAND DESCRIPTION A near-level wetland area (i.e. with little or no relief) with little or no gradient, situated on a plain or a bench in terms of landscape setting. A depression is a landform with closed elevation Bench Depression contours that increases in depth from the perimeter to the central area of the greatest depth, where water accumulates. Water sources are precipitation, ground water discharge, interflow and overland flow. An inclined stretch of ground that is not part of a valley floor, typically located on the side of a mountain, hill or valley. A slope seep is a wetland area located on gently sloping land Slope Seep dominated by the gravity driven movement of material down-slope. Seeps are generally associated with strong, unidirectional flow of water horizontally. Water input is primarily groundwater or precipitation. Small depressional areas within a channelled valley-bottom wetland can result in the Valley Floor: temporary containment and storage of water within the wetland. Water generally exits in the Channelled Valley- form of diffuse surface flow and interflow, with the infiltration and evaporation of water from Bottom Wetland these wetlands also being potentially significant.

Water bodies play an important ecological role, which includes the functioning of the vegetation which is found to occur in these areas. This vegetation plays a role in the improvement of the water quality and the trapping of sediment (Daily, 1997).

The maintenance of these water bodies is important as it provides suitable habitat for hydrophytic and hydrophilic species and riparian vegetation which occurs in these wetland areas. Plates 4-11, 4-12 and 4-13 illustrate some of the wetlands and dams which were identified within the proposed site and surrounds.

Plate 4-11: Example 1 Indicating an artificial wetland within the Proposed Sites and surrounds.

CES 28 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Plate 4-12: Example 2 Indicating an artificial wetland within the Proposed Sites and surrounds.

Plate 4-13: Example 3 Indicating an artificial wetland within the Proposed Sites and surrounds.

CES 29 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Figure 4-3: Surface Water Map of the Proposed Albany WEF and Grid Infrastructure Sites and Surrounds.

CES 30 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

5. FAUNAL SPECIES AND HABITATS

In the sections below, information and survey data associated with amphibians, reptiles and mammals (with the exception of bats) is provided. Since birds and bats are particularly sensitive to wind turbines, specialist monitoring and impact assessments have been undertaken separate to this report. Therefore, for any information relating to these taxonomic groups, please refer to these specialist reports.

5.1. REPTILES, AMPHIBIANS,AND MAMMALS

Amphibians and reptiles are well represented in sub-Saharan Africa. However, distribution patterns in southern Africa are uneven, both in terms of species distribution and in population numbers (du Preez and Carruthers, 2009). Climate, centres of origin and range restrictions are the three (3) main factors which determine species distribution. The eastern coast of South Africa has the highest amphibian diversity and endemicity, while reptile diversity is generally highest in the north-eastern extremes of South Africa and declines to the south and west (Alexander and Marais, 2010).

5.1.1. Reptiles

The Eastern Cape is home to one-hundred and thirty-three (133) reptile species, which include twenty-one (21) snakes, twenty-seven (27) lizards and eight (8) chelonians (tortoises and turtles). The majority of these are found in Mesic Succulent Thicket and riverine habitats.

The Animal Demography Unit (ADU) historical records indicate that sixty-two (62) reptile species are likely to occur within the proposed site (QDS 3326 BA, 3326 BC, and 3326BD). None of these species are threatened in terms of the Red List of Reptiles of South Africa (2014) and only the Southern African Python (Python natalensis) is listed under NEM:BA. However, all of the lizards and tortoises, which are likely to occur within the proposed site, are listed as a Schedule II species on the PNCO list and will therefore, require permits for their removal. Table 5-1 lists the reptilian SCC which are likely to occur within the proposed site.

Table 5-1: Reptile SCC within the Proposed Site (ADU).

SA RED LIST BA

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME CATEGORY :

SITE

IUCN

CITES

PNCO REGION REGION

(SARCA) NEM

ENDEMIC RECORDEDON Least Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake - - - Schedule II - Yes Concern Eastern Cape Dwarf Least Appendix Bradypodion ventrale - - - Yes - Chameleon Concern II Chamaesaura anguina Least Cape Grass Lizard - - - Schedule II Yes - anguina Concern Least Appendix Chersina angulata Angulate Tortoise - - Schedule II - - Concern II Least Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard - - App. II Schedule II Yes Yes Concern Least Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic egg-eater - - - Schedule II - - Concern Southern Brown Egg- Least Dasypeltis inornata - - - Schedule II Yes - eater Concern Least Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug-eater - - - Schedule II Yes Yes Concern Least Appendix Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked Tortoise - - Schedule II Yes Yes Concern II

CES 31 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Yellow-bellied House Least Lamprophis fuscus - - - Schedule II Yes - Snake Concern Lycodonomorphus Least Brown Water Snake - - - Schedule II - Yes rufulus Concern Lycodonomorphus Least Olive House Snake - - - Schedule II Yes - inornatus Concern Lycodonomorphus Dusky-bellied Water Least - - - Schedule II Yes - laevissimus Snake Concern Lycophidion capense Least Cape Wolf Snake - - - Schedule II - - capense Concern Delalande’s Sandveld Least Nucras lalandii - - - Schedule II - Yes Lizard Concern Near Nucras taeniolata Albany Sandveld Lizard - - - Schedule II Yes - Threatened Least Pedioplanis burchelli Burchell's Sand Lizard - - - Schedule II Yes Yes Concern Pedioplanis Least Common Sand Lizard - - - Schedule II - - lineoocellata pulchella Concern

Philothamnus Western Natal Green Least - - - Schedule II Yes - natalensis occidentalis Snake Concern Philothamnus Least Spotted Bush Snake - - - Schedule II - - semivariegatus Concern Least Appendix Python natalensis Southern African Python - P - - - Concern II Least Appendix Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise - - Schedule II - - Concern II Tropidosaura Ranger's Mountain Not listed - - - Schedule II - Yes montana rangeri Lizard Least Appendix Varanus niloticus Water Monitor - - - - - Concern II

Twenty (20) of the sixty-two (62) species which are likely to be found within the proposed site and surrounds have been recorded on site by the specialists. Please see Plate 5-1 below, and on the pages that follow, for images of all reptiles recorded on site. Please also refer to Appendix A-2 for a full list of species which are likely to occur within the proposed site.

Ranger’s mountain lizard (Tropidosaura montana Variable skink (Trachylepis varia) rangeri)

CES 32 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Cape Skink (Trachylepis capensis) Burchell’s sand lizard (Pedioplanis burchelli)

Delalande’s sandveld lizard (Nucras lalandii) Cape girdled lizard (Cordylus cordylus)

Southern rock agama (Agama atra) Spotted gecko (Pachydactylus maculatus)

Essex’s Pygmy gecko (Goggia essexi) Eastern cape legless skink (Acontias orientalis)

CES 33 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Spotted skaapsteker (Psammophylax rhombeatus) South African slug-eater (Duberria lutrix)

Brown water snake (Lycodonomorphus rufulus) Brown house snake (Boaedon capensis)

Cross-marked whip snake (Psammophis crucifer) Bibron’s blind snake (Afrotyphlops bibronii)

Delaland’s beaked blind snake (Rhinotyphlops lalandei) Rhombic egg-eater (Dasypeltis scabra)

CES 34 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Rhombic night adder (Causus rhombeatus) Parrot-beaked padlooper (Homopus areopatus) Plate 5-1: Reptile Species Recorded within the Proposed Site and Surrounds.

5.1.2. Amphibians

Amphibians are an important, and often neglected, component of terrestrial vertebrate faunas. A relatively rich amphibian fauna occurs in the Eastern Cape Province, where a total of thirty-two (32) species and sub- species occur. This represents almost a third of the species known in South Africa. Knowledge of amphibian species diversity within the proposed site is limited. However, according to the ADU’s Amphibian database, seventeen (17) species of frog have been documented in the Quarter Degree Squares (QDS), within which the Albany WEF is being proposed. Of these seventeen (17) species, none are listed as Schedule 1 on the PNCO list. However, all frogs and toads are listed as Schedule II species on the PNCO list and will therefore require permits for their removal. None of these species are listed in the NEM:BA List of Threatened and Protected Species (TOPS), and only the Giant Bull Frog (Pyxicephalus adspersus) is listed as Near Threatened on IUCN’s Red Data List. Please refer to Appendix A-3 for a full species list of frogs and toads which are likely to be found within the proposed site.

During the site investigation and during additional visits to the proposed site and surrounds, the specialists recorded eight (8) out of the seventeen (17) species which are likely to be found within the proposed site. Plate 5-2 below consists of photographs of frogs and toads within the proposed site.

Clicking Stream Frog (Strongylopis grayii) Bubbling Kassina (Kassina senegalensis)

CES 35 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Boettger’s Caco (Cacosternum boettgeri) Bronze Caco (Cacosternum nanum)

Painted reed frog (Hyperolius marmoratus verrucosus) Bushveld rain frog (Breviceps adspersus pentheri)

Raucous toad (Amietophrynus rangeri) Common Platanna (Xenopus laevis) Plate 5-2: Amphibian Species Recorded within the Proposed Site.

5.1.3. Mammals

Large game makes up less than 15% of the mammal species in South Africa and a much smaller percentage in numbers and biomass. In developed and farming areas, this percentage is greatly reduced, with the majority of small or medium-sized mammal species present.

CES 36 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

According to the NEM:BA, four (4) Protected terrestrial mammal species and two (2) Vulnerable terrestrial species have distributions which coincide with the proposed site (Table 5-2). Four (4) species are listed as either Endangered or Vulnerable, and two (2) as Near Threatened according to the South African Red Data List, and three (3) species are listed as either Endangered or Vulnerable according to the IUCN Red Data List. Most terrestrial mammal species tend to avoid areas which are disturbed by anthropogenic activities. However, there is the possibility that smaller and less mobile mammal species, such as moles, will be encountered. The Giant Golden Mole (Chrysospalax trevelyani) is listed as an Endangered species according to the IUCN Red Data List, Vulnerable according to the SA Red Data List, and has a Vulnerable status according to the NEM:BA.

Table 5-2: Terrestrial Mammals of Conservation Concern likely to Occur within the Proposed Site. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SA RED LIST IUCN NEM:BA PNCO Atelerix frontalis South African Hedgehog NT LC PR Schedule II

Chrysospalax trevelyani Giant Golden Mole VU EN VU -

Felis nigripes Black-footed Cat LC VU PR

Mellivora capensis Honey Badger NT LC PR Schedule II

Myosorex sclateri Sclater's Tiny Mouse Shrew EN LC - Schedule II

Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Mouse EN EN - -

Philantomba monticola Blue Duiker VU LC VU Schedule II

Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC LC PR Schedule II

CES 37 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

6. SITE SENSITIVITY

6.1. PROPOSED ALBANY WEF AND POWERLINE INFRASTRUCTURE

The sensitivity map was developed by identifying areas of very high, high, moderate and low sensitivity (Figure 6-1). Please note that the sensitivity map excludes bird and bat sensitivity as these are included in the respective specialist reports.

The following areas of very high sensitivity should be considered NO-GO areas: → The Southern Mistbelt Forest patches (Beggars Bush State Forest); and → The Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve.

Areas of HIGH sensitivity include: → Process areas such as rivers, wetlands and drainage lines which are important for ecosystem functioning; → Areas which are classified as CBA 1 (ECBCP, 2007); → Areas which have a high species richness; → Areas which are not significantly impacted, transformed or degraded by current land use; and → Areas which contain the majority of SCC found in the area and may contain high numbers of globally important species or comprise part of a globally important vegetation type.

Areas of MODERATE sensitivity include: → The regulatory buffers of rivers, wetlands and drainage lines; → Areas which are classified as CBA 2 (ECBCP, 2007); → Areas which provide a valuable contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning despite being degraded; → Degraded areas which have a relatively high species richness; and → Degraded areas which contain SCC.

Areas of LOW sensitivity include: → Areas which are highly impacted by current land use (roads, urban development, excavations, etc.) and provide little value to the ecosystem; and → Highly degraded areas which are unlikely to harbour any SCC.

CES 38 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Figure 6-1: Ecological Sensitivity Map of the Proposed Albany WEF Site and Surrounds.

Figure 6-2: Ecological Sensitivity Map of the Proposed Albany Grid Infrastructure Site and Surrounds.

CES 39 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

7. ALBANY WEF IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

7.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter details the ecological impacts, relating to proposed Albany WEF, which have been identified by the specialist consultants. Each potential issue is identified and described, followed by the recommended mitigation measures which are required to minimise the negative impacts associated with the issue and, where relevant, increase the benefits. The impact rating methodology used to determine the impacts below is presented in Appendix A-1 of this report.

The overall impacts associated with the current layout of the proposed Albany WEF as well as the “no- go alternative” will be assessed to evaluate the significance of the “as predicted” ecological impacts (prior to mitigation) and the “residual” ecological impacts (that remain after mitigation measures are considered).

7.2. PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE

No direct, indirect or cumulative ecological impacts have been identified for the Planning and Design Phase of the proposed Albany WEF because no tangible alterations to the environment will occur within the proposed site during this phase, although the current layout plan shows turbines and infrastructure within Critical Biodiversity Areas and is therefore not entirely consistent with the land use guidelines in the Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan (2007). It must be noted, however, that the CBA classification is triggered by the presence of threatened bird (assessed in the Avifaunal Impact Assessment) and plant species and was not driven by the need of these areas to meet National ecosystem targets.

7.3. CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Impact 1: Faunal Habitat Loss and Fragmentation

Cause and Comment

The habitats within the proposed site and those of the surrounding areas form part of a functional ecosystem. An ecosystem provides more than simply a ‘home’ for a set of organisms, it is a functional system where biological and biophysical processes such as nutrient cycling, soil formation, reproduction, migration, competition, predation, succession, evolution and migration take place. Destruction or modification of habitats causes disruption of ecosystem function and threatens the interplay of processes which ensure environmental health and the survival of individual species.

Faunal habitats will be impacted on and could be lost during the clearing of vegetation for the construction of internal roads and the construction of turbine hardstands. This is usually accompanied by the loss of food sources and/or shelter but may also include the loss of temporary wetlands, caves or rocky outcrops. Construction of turbine hardstands and road infrastructure through these habitats could have a significant impact on an already fragmented population of species due to the existing infrastructure, such as the N2 and R67 roads.

Mitigation and Management

• Where possible, internal roads and turbine hardstands should be planned and constructed to avoid highly sensitive areas.

CES 40 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• Where access roads and/or turbine hardstands do need to be located within highly sensitive areas then there should be further ground-truthing to determine the exact road routes and turbine hardstand locations so to, where possible, avoid site specific sensitive areas. • Wherever possible, existing service/access roads should be used. • Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum and all rocky outcrops and wetlands must be avoided. • Construction areas should be demarcated with hazard tape and no clearing must occur outside of these areas. Laydown areas and construction camps must be located in areas of low sensitivity. Where this is not feasible, then in areas of moderate sensitivity. • An Environmental Control Officer (ECO) must be employed to monitor the clearing of vegetation for the construction of roads and hardstands.

Significance Statement IMPACT 1: FAUNAL HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Direct & Permanent Localised Severe Definite HIGH (-) Without WEF Layout Cumulative Mitigation No-Go Alternative Existing Study Permanent Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Area

Preferred Albany Direct & With Permanent Localised Moderate Probable MODERATE (-) WEF Layout Cumulative Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 2: Loss of Reptile Diversity

Cause and Comment

It is likely that some of the reptile species, which occur within the proposed site, will be disturbed or killed due to construction activities. This could be due to habitat loss or mortality associated with road mortality or poaching.

Due to the existing primary and secondary roads in proximity to the proposed site, it is likely that reptile habitats have already been disturbed in some areas within the proposed site. It is also likely that reptiles have been and will continue to be killed along these roads in the absence of the proposed development.

Mitigation and Management

CES 41 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• The construction of turbine hardstands on rocky outcrops should be avoided. • Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) must be in place to reduce the likelihood of reptiles being killed along the roads. • Driving within the site must be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible. • Wherever possible, existing service/access roads must be used. • Access to all internal roads must be restricted through locked gates and/or guarded booms. • It is recommended that construction staff are educated regarding poaching and any such activities must be strictly prohibited.

Significance Statement IMPACT 2: LOSS OF REPTILE DIVERSITY EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Direct & Study Medium Term Moderate Probable MODERATE (-) Without WEF Layout Cumulative Area Mitigation Study No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) Area

Preferred Albany Direct & Study With Short Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) WEF Layout Cumulative Area Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 3: Loss of Amphibian Diversity

Cause and Comment

It is likely that some of the amphibian species, which occur within the proposed site near surface water habitats, will be disturbed or killed due to construction activities. However, as amphibians are primarily associated with surface water, the likelihood of directly encountering amphibians during construction and operation is lower than that of reptiles. Although, the increase in traffic in the area could result in road fatalities, especially the fatalities of amphibians moving between the wetlands, rivers and streams within the site. In addition, an increase in noise could impact the breeding behaviour of some amphibian species.

Due to the existing primary and secondary roads in some areas the proposed site, it is likely that amphibian habitats have already been disturbed to some degree. It is also likely that amphibians have been, and will continue to be, killed along these roads in the absence of the proposed development.

Mitigation and Management

CES 42 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) must be in place to reduce the likelihood of amphibians being killed along the roads. • Driving within the site should be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible. • Vehicles should be well maintained so as not to leak oils and fuels which could pollute surface water sources. • Oils and fuels should be stored on impermeable surfaces and preferably under lock and key to reduce the likelihood of the pollution of surface water. • Where possible, existing service/access/haul roads should be used. • Access to all internal roads should be restricted through locked gates and/or guarded booms. • It is recommended that construction staff are educated regarding poaching and any such activities must be strictly prohibited.

Significance Statement IMPACT 3: LOSS OF AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Direct & Without Medium Term Localised Moderate Probable MODERATE (-) WEF Layout Cumulative Mitigation No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW (-)

Preferred Albany Direct & With Short Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW (-) WEF Layout Cumulative Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 4: Loss of Mammal Diversity

Cause and Comment

It is likely that some mammal species will be impacted during the construction phase as a result of habitat loss and road mortality within the proposed site. During the operation phase, noise may affect communication and breeding potential. The proposed site traverses extensive areas of land which contain numerous large and small mammal species. Most of these large and small mammals, including mammal SCC, will move out of the disturbed areas during the construction phase, but may return once habituated for foraging opportunities. It is possible that some of the smaller, and more secretive mammal species, may still be encountered within the site throughout these phases.

In the absence of the proposed development, it is likely that most of the large and small mammal species will probably still move around within and outside of the site due to movement towards foraging opportunities and/or moving away from anthropogenic activities and associated noises within the site.

Mitigation and Management

CES 43 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• A mole specialist should be appointed to undertake a detailed survey to confirm the presence/absence of Golden moles and assist with micro-siting of the WEF and associated infrastructure and developing a plan to mitigate impacts if detected or favourable habitat is identified (such as relocation). • Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) should be in place to reduce the likelihood of mammals being killed along the roads. • Driving within the proposed site should be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible. • Where possible, existing service/access roads must be used. • Access to all access/service roads should be limited by having locked gates. • It is recommended that construction staff are educated regarding poaching and any such activities must be strictly prohibited.

Significance Statement IMPACT 4: LOSS OF MAMMAL DIVERSITY EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Direct & Study Short Term Slight Probable LOW (-) Without WEF Layout Indirect Area Mitigation Study No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) Area

Preferred Albany Direct & Study With Short Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) WEF Layout Indirect Area Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 5: Impact of Noise and Dust on Faunal Species

Cause and Comment

The construction of the proposed WEF and associated infrastructure will result in an increase in noise and dust within the proposed site and surrounds. Roads are known to alter the physical characteristics of the environment and it is possible that numerous species within the proposed site will be affected by the increase in noise and dust to some extent. The faunal group which is most likely to be impacted by the increase in noise and dust levels is amphibians. Increased dust levels alter wetlands and riparian areas which could affect the feeding and breeding of amphibians within these areas.

Fauna vary in the degree to which they can tolerate such disturbances and the increase in noise and dust could potentially have adverse impacts on various faunal groups. Increased noise and motor vibrations in wetland areas could also impact amphibian breeding choruses, but these impacts will be localised and many amphibian species are surprisingly tolerant of vehicle noise. Noise pollution will occur during all phases of development (construction, operational, and de-commissioning/closure).

Mitigation and Management

CES 44 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) should be in place to reduce the amount of dust caused by vehicle movement along the roads. • Where possible, fine materials should be covered or kept in containers during transportation to avoid contamination of the surrounding areas. • Driving within the proposed site should be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible. • All reasonable and feasible measures should be implemented to reduce noise in ecologically sensitive areas, such as adjacent to wetlands and rivers.

Significance Statement IMPACT 5: IMPACT OF NOISE AND DUST ON FAUNAL SPECIES EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Direct & Without Short Term Localised Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) WEF Layout Indirect Mitigation No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW (-)

Preferred Albany Direct & With Short Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW (-) WEF Layout Indirect Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 6: Loss of Vegetation Communities

Cause and Comment

Plant communities are dynamic ecosystems which provide habitats that support all forms of life. Different types of plant communities (and habitats) exist within the proposed site. The vegetation types which will be affected by the proposed development footprints include Grahamstown Grassland Thicket, Albany Bontveld, Albany Valley Thicket, Bhisho Thornveld, Suurberg Shale Fynbos and Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos from the Albany Thicket, Savanna and Fynbos Biomes. The current condition of these vegetation communities varies from good to poor condition, depending on the level of transformation caused by anthropogenic activities. In accordance with Mucina et al., (2018), the conservation statuses of all these vegetation types are least threatened, except for Albany Valley Thicket which is classified as vulnerable. Sections of these vegetation types will be lost due to vegetation clearance during the construction phase of the Albany WEF.

Currently, vegetation communities have been and will continue to be lost and/or fragmented in the area, in absence of the Albany WEF development, due to transformation for agricultural activities and other development.

Mitigation and Management

• The turbine and road layouts need to under-go micro-siting prior to finalisation of the turbine layout. • A comprehensive Plant Search and Rescue must be undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist prior to vegetation clearance. • All relevant plant permits must be in place prior to the removal or removal and relocation of protected species. • Plant SCC found within the proposed site must either be housed in an onsite nursery for use during rehabilitation or be relocated to suitable areas where vegetation clearance will not occur. • Areas of the proposed site which contain large populations of SCC must be avoided where possible.

CES 45 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• The clearance of vegetation, at any given time, must be kept to a minimum to reduce the possibility of soil erosion. • The clearing of vegetation and damage to plants must not be permitted in any areas which have demarcated as no-go areas, these include the Southern Mistbelt Forest patches (Beggars Bush State Forest) as well as the Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve. • Where possible, all temporary infrastructure should be placed in areas which have already been transformed. • Existing roads should be used as far as practically possible.

Significance Statement IMPACT 6: LOSS OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Direct & Study Without Long Term Severe Definite HIGH (-) WEF Layout Cumulative Area Mitigation No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Localised Slight Definite LOW (-)

Preferred Albany Direct & With Long Term Localised Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) WEF Layout Cumulative Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 7: Removal of Alien Vegetation

Cause and Comment

The clearance of vegetation associated with the development of the Albany WEF and associated infrastructure will include the clearance of alien vegetation which is already present on portions of the proposed site. This will be a positive impact as alien invasive species will be removed, which will improve the condition of the existing indigenous vegetation as there will be less competition from alien invasive species.

Mitigation and Management

• A site-specific Alien Vegetation Management Plan must be implemented during the construction phase, and continued monitoring and eradication needs to take place throughout the life of the project. • Alien vegetation, within the development footprints, should be removed from the site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site. • The development footprints and immediate surroundings should be monitored for the growth/regrowth of alien vegetation throughout the construction (and operation) phase.

Significance Statement IMPACT 7: REMOVAL OF ALIEN VEGETATION EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Moderatel WEF Layout Direct Short Term Localised y Definite LOW (+) Without beneficial Mitigation Study No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Area

CES 46 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Preferred Albany With Direct Long Term Localised Beneficial Definite MODERATE (+) WEF Layout Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 8: Pollution of Surface Water Resources

Cause and Comment

The proposed site contains numerous wetlands and watercourses. None of the proposed turbines, according to the current layout, are situated within wetlands or watercourses but numerous turbines are located within the 500 m regulatory buffer of wetlands. Sections of associated infrastructure, such as roads, are also routed within 500 m of numerous wetlands and within the 100 m regulatory buffer of a watercourses. Water use authorisation is required from the Department of Water and Sanitation (DWS) prior to the commencement of any construction activities within the regulatory buffers of these wetlands and watercourses.

Activities associated with the proposed development could result in the pollution of surface water resources both directly and indirectly through activities such as the inappropriate storage of hazardous materials which could result in spillages and the resultant contamination of surface water resources.

Mitigation and Management

• No concrete mixing must take place within 32 m of any watercourse or 500 m of a wetland during the construction phase. • Concrete mixing must only take place on impermeable surfaces. • No construction machinery must be parked within 500 m of a wetland or 32 m watercourse overnight. • Construction machinery must be maintained regularly to reduce the risk of oil and fuel leaks. • All stationary machinery should be equipped with drip trays to retain potential oil and fuel leaks. • Emergency plans must be in place to remedy oil and fuel spill leaks. • Chemical toilets must not be placed within 50 m from wetlands and watercourses. Toilets must be maintained/serviced regularly to prevent the contamination of the surrounding environments, including wetlands and watercourses.

Significance Statement IMPACT 8: POLLUTION OF SURFACE WATER RESOURCES EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Direct & Without Medium Term Localised Severe Probable MODERATE (-) WEF Layout Indirect Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Preferred Albany Direct & With Short Term Localised Moderate May Occur LOW (-) WEF Layout Indirect Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

CES 47 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Impact 9: Rehabilitation

Cause and Comment

Inadequate rehabilitation could result in limited revegetation and/or an invasion of alien vegetation which will result in long term ecological degradation and damage.

Mitigation and Management

• A Rehabilitation Management Plan should be developed and implemented during the construction phase as construction is complete at each site. • Measures should be put in place to prevent the accidental or unintentional introduction of alien vegetation during rehabilitation. • The development footprints and immediate surroundings should be monitored for the growth/regrowth of alien vegetation throughout the construction phase. • Indigenous species must be used for rehabilitation.

Significance Statement IMPACT 9: REHABILITATION EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Without Direct Long Term Localised Severe Definite MODERATE (-) WEF Layout Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Preferred Albany With Direct Short Term Localised Moderate May Occur LOW (-) WEF Layout Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

7.4. OPERATIONAL PHASE

Impact 10: Invasion of Alien Vegetation

Cause and Comment

The clearance of vegetation associated with the development of the Albany WEF and associated infrastructure will create open/bare habitats which are likely to be colonised by pioneer plant species. While this is partly a natural revegetation/regeneration process, which would ultimately lead to the re-establishment of secondary vegetation cover, it also favours the establishment of alien vegetation.

Mitigation and Management

• The site-specific Alien Vegetation Management Plan must be implemented for the first two (2) years of the operational phase. Thereafter, alien vegetation must continue to be monitored and eradicated annually throughout the life of the project. • Alien vegetation, within the development footprints, must be removed from the site as they appear and must be disposed of at a registered waste disposal site.

Significance Statement IMPACT 10: INVASION OF ALIEN VEGETATION

CES 48 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Preferred Albany Direct Long Term Localised Severe Probable HIGH (-) Without WEF Layout Mitigation Study No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Area

Preferred Albany Slightly With Direct Short Term Localised Definite LOW (+) WEF Layout Beneficial Mitigation No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

7.5. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE

It is highly unlikely that the proposed development would be decommissioned in the short term, however once it has reached the end of its lifespan (approximately 20 - 25 years), the top structures (actual turbines) will likely be removed. The turbine foundations and access roads will not be removed.

The ecological impacts associated with the decommissioning phase will be similar to those listed in the construction phase and the associated mitigations measures must be updated and implemented to reduce potential adverse impacts.

CES 49 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

8. ALBANY GRID INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACT IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT

8.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter details the ecological impacts, relating to proposed Albany grid infrastructure, which have been identified by the specialist consultants. Each potential issue is identified and described, followed by the recommended mitigation measures which are required to minimise the negative impacts associated with the issue and, where relevant, increase the benefits. The impact rating methodology used to determine the impacts below is presented in Appendix A-1 of this report.

The overall impacts associated with the current layout of the proposed Albany grid infrastructure (including both overhead line options as they fall within the same corridor) and the “no-go alternative” will be assessed to evaluate the significance of the “as predicted” ecological impacts (prior to mitigation) and the “residual” ecological impacts (that remain after mitigation measures are considered).

8.2. PLANNING AND DESIGN PHASE

No direct, indirect or cumulative ecological impacts have been identified for the Planning and Design Phase of the proposed Albany grid infrastructure because no tangible alterations to the environment will occur within the proposed site during this phase.

8.3. CONSTRUCTION PHASE

Impact 1: Faunal Habitat Loss and Fragmentation

Cause and Comment

The habitats within the proposed site and those of the surrounding areas form part of a functional ecosystem. Destruction or modification of habitats causes disruption of ecosystem function and threatens the interplay of processes which ensure environmental health and the survival of individual species. During the construction phase, faunal habitats will be impacted and could be lost during the clearing of vegetation for the construction of the overhead line pylons and the associated substation infrastructure. However, it must be noted that faunal species are mobile and will move out of the affected areas due to construction activities but that they are likely to move back to these areas once the affected areas have been rehabilitated.

Faunal habitats have already been lost in the area due to development and agricultural activities. In addition, the existing road networks have resulted in the fragmentation of faunal habitats.

Mitigation and Management

• Ground truthing must be undertaken within the overhead line corridor to determine the route with the least possible damage to faunal habitats. • Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum and rocky outcrops and wetlands must be avoided, where possible. • Construction areas should be demarcated with hazard tape and no clearing must occur outside of these areas.

CES 50 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Significance Statement IMPACT 1: FAUNAL HABITAT LOSS AND FRAGMENTATION EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Direct & Without Infrastructure Short Term Localised Moderate Probable MODERATE (-) Cumulative Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Localised Slight Definite LOW (-)

Both Grid Direct & With Infrastructure Short Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW (-) Cumulative Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 2: Loss of Reptile Diversity

Cause and Comment

Due to the current land uses within the proposed site, it is likely that reptile habitats have already been disturbed in some areas within the proposed site. It is also likely that reptiles have been and will continue to be killed along the road networks in the absence of the proposed development.

Mitigation and Management

• All the lizards and tortoises, which are likely to occur within the proposed site that are listed as Schedule II species on the PNCO List, and it is therefore illegal for any construction staff to remove them from the site. It will be difficult to avoid all areas where reptiles are likely to occur, but it is recommended that construction staff are educated with regards to reptile conservation and that all staff employed by the developer ensure that any reptiles encountered are not killed. Any reptiles encountered should be allowed to move away from the area but those which require relocation should be relocated in accordance with local legislation. • No reptiles must be removed from the site without proper authorisation from the relevant authority. • A rescue plan should be developed to protect reptiles which could fall into construction pits. • The construction of gird infrastructure on rocky outcrops should be avoided. • Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) must be in place to reduce the likelihood of reptiles being killed along the access roads during construction. • Driving within the site must be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible. • It is recommended that construction staff are educated regarding poaching and any such activities must be strictly prohibited.

Significance Statement IMPACT 2: LOSS OF REPTILE DIVERSITY EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE

CES 51 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Both Grid Direct & Study Infrastructure Cumulative Short Term Moderate Probable MODERATE (-) Without Area Layouts Mitigation Study No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) Area

Both Grid Direct & Study With Infrastructure Cumulative Short Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) Area Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 3: Loss of Amphibian Diversity

Cause and Comment

Mitigation and Management

• All frogs and toads are listed as Schedule II species on the PNCO List and it is therefore illegal to remove them from the site without a permit. • Where possible, the placement of turbine hardstands should avoid all aquatic habitats as they are valuable habitats for protected amphibian species. • If amphibians are encountered during construction works, all construction staff should be educated with regards to amphibian conservation to ensure that they are not harmed or killed. Any amphibians encountered should be allowed to move away from the area or carefully relocated to an area within the same catchment. • No amphibians will be allowed to be removed from the site. • The construction of pylons must avoid the wetland areas. • Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) must be in place to reduce the likelihood of amphibians being killed along the roads. • Driving within the site should be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible. • Vehicles should be well maintained so as not to leak oils and fuels which could pollute surface water sources. • Oils and fuels should be stored on impermeable surfaces, and preferably under lock and key, to reduce the likelihood of the pollution of surface water. • Where possible, existing service/access/haul roads should be used. • It is recommended that construction staff are educated regarding poaching and any such activities must be strictly prohibited.

Significance Statement

CES 52 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

IMPACT 3: LOSS OF AMPHIBIAN DIVERSITY EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Direct & Without Infrastructure Short Term Localised Moderate Probable MODERATE (-) Cumulative Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW (-)

Both Grid Direct & With Infrastructure Short Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW (-) Cumulative Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 4: Loss of Mammal Diversity

Cause and Comment

Mitigation and Management

• In the event of the unearthing of any mole species during construction, all construction staff should be educated with regards to mammal conservation to ensure that they are not killed, and any mammals encountered should be allowed to move away from the area or carefully moved to an area outside of the project activities. • Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) should be in place to reduce the likelihood of mammals being killed along the roads. • Driving within the proposed site should be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible. • It is recommended that construction staff are educated regarding poaching and any such activities must be strictly prohibited.

Significance Statement IMPACT 4: LOSS OF MAMMAL DIVERSITY EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Direct & Study Infrastructure Short Term Slight Probable LOW (-) Without Indirect Area Layouts Mitigation Study No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) Area

CES 53 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Both Grid Direct & Study With Infrastructure Short Term Slight May Occur LOW (-) Indirect Area Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 5: Impact of Noise and Dust on Faunal Species

Cause and Comment

The construction of the proposed grid infrastructure will result in an increase in noise and dust within the proposed site and surrounds. It is possible that numerous species within the proposed site will be affected by the increase in noise and dust to some extent. The faunal group which is most likely to be impacted by the increase in noise and dust levels is amphibians. Increased dust levels alter wetlands and riparian areas which could affect the feeding and breeding of amphibians within these areas.

Fauna vary in the degree to which they can tolerate such disturbances and the increase in noise and dust could potentially have adverse impacts on various faunal groups. Increased noise in wetland areas could also impact amphibian breeding choruses, but these impacts will be localised and many amphibian species are surprisingly tolerant of vehicle noise. Noise pollution will primarily occur during the construction phase of the grid infrastructure development.

Mitigation and Management

• Soil stockpiles should be limited to 1.5 m in height. • Construction activities such as the digging of trenches, which could result in excessive dust pollution, should preferably cease during period of high winds. • Newly cleared and exposed areas must be managed for dust and landscaped with indigenous vegetation to avoid soil erosion. Where necessary, temporary stabilization measures must be used until vegetation establishes. • Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) should be in place to reduce the amount of dust caused by vehicle movement along the roads. • Where possible, fine materials should be covered or kept in containers during transportation to avoid contamination of the surrounding areas. • Driving within the proposed site should be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible.

Significance Statement IMPACT 5: IMPACT OF NOISE AND DUST ON FAUNAL SPECIES EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Direct & Without Infrastructure Short Term Localised Moderate Definite LOW (-) Indirect Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Localised Slight May Occur LOW (-)

Both Grid Direct & With Infrastructure Short Term Localised Slight Definite LOW (-) Indirect Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 6: Loss of Vegetation Communities

Cause and Comment

CES 54 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Plant communities are dynamic ecosystems which provide habitats that support all forms of life. Different types of plant communities (and habitats) exist within the proposed site. The vegetation types which will be affected by the proposed development footprints include Grahamstown Grassland Thicket, Bhisho Thornveld and Suurberg Quartzite Fynbos. The current condition of these vegetation communities varies from good to poor condition, depending on the level of transformation caused by anthropogenic activities. Sections of these vegetation types will be lost due to vegetation clearance during the construction phase of the grid infrastructure. No development must occur within the patches of Southern Mistbelt Forest.

Vegetation communities have been and will continue to be lost and/or fragmented in the area, in absence of the grid infrastructure development, due to transformation for agricultural activities and other development.

Mitigation and Management

• A comprehensive Plant Search and Rescue must be undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist prior to vegetation clearance. • All relevant plant permits must be in place prior to the removal or removal and relocation of protected species. • Plant SCC found within the proposed site must either be housed in an onsite nursery for use during rehabilitation or be relocated to suitable areas where vegetation clearance will not occur. • Areas of the proposed site which contain large populations of SCC should be avoided where possible. • The clearance of vegetation, at any given time, must be kept to a minimum to reduce the possibility of soil erosion. • The clearing of vegetation and damage to plants may not be permitted in any areas which have been demarcated as no-go areas, these include the Southern Mistbelt Forest patches (Beggars Bush State Forest) as well as the Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve. • Where possible, all temporary infrastructure should be placed in areas which have already been transformed.

Significance Statement IMPACT 6: LOSS OF VEGETATION COMMUNITIES EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Direct & Study Without Infrastructure Permanent Moderate Definite MODERATE (-) Cumulative Area Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative Existing Permanent Localised Slight Definite LOW (-)

Both Grid Direct & With Infrastructure Long Term Localised Moderate Definite LOW (-) Cumulative Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 7: Removal of Alien Vegetation

Cause and Comment

CES 55 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

The clearance of vegetation associated with the development of the Albany grid infrastructure will include the clearance of alien vegetation which is already present on portions of the proposed site. This will be a positive impact as alien invasive species will be removed, which will improve the condition of the existing indigenous vegetation as there will be less competition from alien invasive species.

Mitigation and Management

• A site-specific Alien Vegetation Management Plan must be implemented during the construction phase. • Alien vegetation, within the development footprints, should be removed from the site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site. • The development footprints and immediate surroundings should be monitored for the growth/regrowth of alien vegetation throughout the construction phase.

Significance Statement IMPACT 7: REMOVAL OF ALIEN VEGETATION EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Slightly Without Infrastructure Direct Short Term Localised Probable LOW (+) Beneficial Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative Existing Medium Term Localised Moderate Definite LOW (-)

Both Grid With Infrastructure Direct Short Term Localised Beneficial Definite LOW (+) Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 8: Pollution of Surface Water Resources

Cause and Comment

The proposed site contains numerous wetlands and watercourses. Sections of the overhead line corridor are located within 500 m of numerous wetlands, within 100 m of numerous tributaries and a section of the corridor is located within 100 m of the Bothas River. Water use authorisation is required from the DWS prior to the commencement of any construction activities within the regulatory buffers of these wetlands and watercourses.

Mitigation and Management

• Where possible, the placement of pylons should avoid wetlands and tributaries. • No concrete mixing must take place within 32 m of a watercourse or 500 m of a wetland during the construction phase. • Concrete mixing must only take place on impermeable surfaces. • No stationary construction machinery must be stored within 500 m of a wetland or 32m of a watercourse.

CES 56 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• Construction machinery must be maintained regularly to reduce the risk of oil and fuel leaks. • All stationary machinery should be equipped with drip trays to retain potential oil and fuel leaks. • Emergency plans must be in place to remedy oil and fuel spill leaks.

Significance Statement IMPACT 8: POLLUTION OF SURFACE WATER RESOURCES EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Direct & Without Infrastructure Medium Term Localised Severe Probable MODERATE (-) Indirect Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Both Grid Direct & With Infrastructure Short Term Localised Moderate May Occur LOW (-) Indirect Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Impact 9: Rehabilitation

Cause and Comment

Inadequate rehabilitation could result in limited revegetation and/or an invasion of alien vegetation which will result in long term ecological degradation and damage.

Mitigation and Management

• A Rehabilitation Management Plan should be developed and implemented during the construction phase as construction is complete only each section of line. • Measures should be put in place to prevent the accidental or unintentional introduction of alien vegetation during rehabilitation. • The development footprints and immediate surroundings should be monitored for the growth/regrowth of alien vegetation throughout the construction phase. • Indigenous species must be used for rehabilitation.

Significance Statement IMPACT 9: REHABILITATION EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Direct & Without Infrastructure Medium Term Localised Severe Probable MODERATE (-) Indirect Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Both Grid Direct & With Infrastructure Short Term Localised Moderate May Occur LOW (-) Indirect Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

8.4. OPERATIONAL PHASE

Impact 10: Invasion of Alien Vegetation

CES 57 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Cause and Comment

The clearance of vegetation associated with the development of the Albany grid infrastructure will create open/bare habitats which are likely to be colonised by pioneer plant species. While this is partly a natural revegetation/regeneration process, which would ultimately lead to the reestablishment of secondary vegetation cover, it also favours the establishment of alien vegetation.

Mitigation and Management

Significance Statement IMPACT 10: INVASION OF ALIEN VEGETATION EFFECT INFRASTRUCTURE OVERALL IMPACT TYPE CONSEQU LIKELIHOOD ALTERNATIVE DURATION EXTENT SIGNIFICANCE ENCE Both Grid Direct & Without Infrastructure Long Term Localised Severe Probable MODERATE (-) Indirect Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative Existing Long Term Localised Slight Definite LOW (-)

Both Grid Direct & Slightly With Infrastructure Short Term Localised Definite LOW (+) Indirect Beneficial Mitigation Layouts No-Go Alternative N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

8.5. DECOMMISSIONING PHASE

It is highly unlikely that the proposed grid infrastructure will be decommissioned in the short term because the infrastructure will form part of the Albany WEF, which has a lifespan of approximately 20 to 25 years. In the unlikely event that the grid infrastructure is decommissioned subsequent to the WEF lifespan, the impacts are likely to be similar to those identified for the construction phase. The mitigation measures, which have been identified for the construction phase, will need to be updated by a suitably qualified specialist and implemented during the decommissioning phase to reduce the likelihood of adverse ecological impacts within the development site.

CES 58 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

9. ALBANY WEF CONCLUDING REMARKS

9.1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ALBANY WEF

Table 9-1 below consists of a summary of the ecological impacts associated with the preferred layout alternative of the proposed Albay WEF development as well as the impacts associated within the no- go alternative.

Table 9-1: Albany WEF Ecological Impacts Summary. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO-GO IMPACT WITHOUT WITH ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MITIGATION PLANNING & DESIGN PHASE No direct, indirect or cumulative ecological impacts have been identified for the Planning and Design Phase of the proposed Albany WEF because no tangible alterations to the environment will occur within the proposed site during this phase. CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1. Faunal Habitat Loss and Fragmentation HIGH (-) MODERATE (-) MODERATE (-) 2. Loss of Reptile Diversity MODERATE (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 3. Loss of Amphibian Diversity MODERATE (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 4. Loss of Mammal Diversity LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 5. Impact of Noise and Dust on Faunal Species MODERATE (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 6. Loss of Vegetation Communities HIGH (-) MODERATE (-) LOW (-) 7. Removal of Alien Vegetation LOW (+) MODERATE (+) MODERATE (-) 8. Pollution of Surface Water Resources MODERATE (-) LOW (-) N/A 9. Rehabilitation MODERATE (-) LOW (-) N/A OPERATIONAL PHASE 7. Invasion of alien vegetation HIGH (-) LOW (+) MODERATE (-) DECOMMISSIONING PHASE It is highly unlikely that the proposed development would be decommissioned in the short term, however once it has reached the end of its lifespan (approximately 20 - 25 years), the top structures (actual turbines) will likely be removed. The turbine foundations and access roads will not be removed.

9.2. SPECIALIST STATEMENT

No fatal flaws were identified during the ecological impact assessment; however, the following areas of high ecological sensitivity, in proximity to the proposed development, must be “no-go” areas for the proposed Albany WEF development: • The patches of Southern Mistbelt Forest vegetation (Beggars Bush State Forest); and • The Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve.

The current Albany WEF layout avoids all of these no-go areas. It must be noted that, although not observed in this study, threatened plant and animal species may be present and it is essential to undertaken detailed surveys and micro-siting of the turbine platform prior to finalising the layout.

CES 59 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

9.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE ALBANY WEF DEVELOPMENT

It is recommended that a suitably qualified ecological specialist is on site prior to vegetation clearance to determine whether any of the SCC or protected species are located within the final/authorised turbine foundation footprints, the road routes and/or the temporary laydown area. If species require removal and/or relocation, the appropriate permissions must be obtained prior to the commencement of vegetation clearance or earth-moving activities in the identified areas. The approvals/permits may be subject to certain conditions, for example allowing various nurseries to collect plants before vegetation clearance commences or the removal of specific species for rehabilitation purposes.

Plants which will be used for rehabilitation purposes must be stored in nurseries until such a time that they are replanted. It should be noted that many critical SCC are plants which will not be able to be successfully uprooted and replanted (Phillipson, 2002), or at best may have a low survival rate. In all cases, the species will require very careful treatment to give them the best chances of survival, and specialist horticultural knowledge is required.

It is recommended that the mitigation measures which are listed in sections 9.3.1, 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 are included in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to reduce the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposed Albany WEF development.

9.3.1. Construction Phase Recommendations

• Where possible, internal roads and turbine hardstands should be planned and constructed to avoid highly sensitive areas. • Where access roads and/or turbine hardstands do need to be located within highly sensitive areas then there should be further ground-truthing to determine the exact road routes and turbine hardstand locations so to, where possible, avoid site specific sensitive areas. • Wherever possible, existing service/access roads should be used. • Clearing of vegetation should be kept to a minimum and all rocky outcrops and wetlands must be avoided. • Construction areas should be demarcated with hazard tape and no clearing must occur outside of these areas. Laydown areas and construction camps must be located in areas of low sensitivity. Where this is not feasible, then in areas of moderate sensitivity. • An ECO must be employed to monitor the clearing of vegetation for the construction of roads and hardstands. • All the lizards and tortoises, which are likely to occur within the proposed site, are listed as Schedule II species on the PNCO List, and it is therefore illegal for any construction staff to remove them from the site. It will be difficult to avoid all areas where reptiles are likely to occur, but it is recommended that construction staff are educated with regards to reptile conservation and that all staff employed by the developer ensure that any reptiles encountered are not killed. Any reptiles encountered should be allowed to move away from the area but those which require relocation should be relocated in accordance with local legislation. • No reptiles must be removed from the site without proper authorisation from the relevant authority. • A rescue plan must be developed to protect reptiles which could fall into construction pits. • The construction of turbine hardstands on rocky outcrops should be avoided. • Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) must be in place to reduce the likelihood of animal mortality on the roads and reduce the impacts associated with dust caused by vehicle movement.

CES 60 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• Driving within the site must be restricted to day-light hours, where feasible. • Access to all internal roads must be restricted through locked gates and/or guarded booms. • It is recommended that construction staff are educated regarding poaching and any such activities must be strictly prohibited. • All frogs and toads are listed as Schedule II species on the PNCO List and it is therefore illegal to remove them from the site. • Where possible, the placement of turbine hardstands must avoid all aquatic habitats as they are valuable habitats for protected amphibian species (i.e. all aquatic habitats). • If amphibians are encountered during construction works, all construction staff must be educated with regards to amphibian conservation to ensure that they are not harmed or killed. Any amphibians encountered must be allowed to move away from the area or carefully relocated to an area within the same catchment. • No amphibians will be allowed to be removed from the site. • The construction of turbine hardstands should avoid the wetland areas. • Vehicles should be well maintained so as not to leak oils and fuels which could pollute surface water sources. • Oils and fuels should be stored on impermeable surfaces and preferably under lock and key to reduce the likelihood of the pollution of surface water. • Where possible, existing service/access/haul roads should be used. • In the event of the unearthing of any mole species during construction, all construction staff should be educated with regards to mammal conservation to ensure that they are not killed, and any mammals encountered should be allowed to move away from the area or carefully moved to an area outside of the project activities. • A mole specialist should be appointed to undertake a detailed survey to confirm the presence/absence of Golden moles and assist with micro-siting of the WEF and associated infrastructure and developing a plan to mitigate impacts if detected or favourable habitat is identified (such as relocation). • Soil stockpiles should be limited to 1.5 m in height. • Construction activities such as the digging of trenches, which could result in excessive dust pollution, should preferably cease during period of high winds. • Newly cleared and exposed areas must be managed for dust and landscaped with indigenous vegetation to avoid soil erosion. Where necessary, temporary stabilization measures must be used until vegetation establishes. • Where possible, fine materials should be covered or kept in containers during transportation to avoid contamination of the surrounding areas. • All reasonable and feasible measures should be implemented to reduce noise in ecologically sensitive areas, such as adjacent to wetlands and rivers. • The turbine and road layouts need to under-go micro-siting prior to finalisation of the turbine layout. • A comprehensive Plant Search and Rescue must be undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist prior to vegetation clearance. • All relevant plant permits must be in place prior to the removal or removal and relocation of protected species. • Plant SCC found within the proposed site must either be housed in an onsite nursery for use during rehabilitation or be relocated to suitable areas where vegetation clearance will not occur. • Areas of the proposed site which contain large populations of SCC must be avoided where possible. • The clearance of vegetation, at any given time, must be kept to a minimum to reduce the possibility of soil erosion.

CES 61 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• The clearing of vegetation and damage to plants may not be permitted in any areas which have demarcated as no-go areas, these include the Southern Mistbelt Forest patches (Beggars Bush State Forest) as well as the Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve. • Where possible, all temporary infrastructure must be placed in areas which have already been transformed. • Existing roads must be used as far as practically possible. • A site-specific Alien Vegetation Management Plan must be implemented during the construction phase, and continued monitoring and eradication needs to take place throughout the life of the project. • Alien vegetation, within the development footprints, must be removed from the site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site. • The development footprints and immediate surroundings should be monitored for the growth/regrowth of alien vegetation throughout the construction and operation phase. • No concrete mixing must take place within 500 m of a wetland or 32 m of a watercourse during the construction phase. • Concrete mixing must only take place on impermeable surfaces. • No construction machinery must be parked within 500 m of a wetland or 32m of a watercourse overnight. • Construction machinery must be maintained regularly to reduce the risk of oil and fuel leaks. • All stationary machinery should be equipped with drip trays to retain potential oil and fuel leaks. • Emergency plans must be in place to remedy oil and fuel spill leaks. • Chemical toilets must not be placed within 500 m from wetlands and 32 m of watercourses. Toilets must be maintained/serviced regularly to prevent the contamination of the surrounding environments, including wetlands and watercourses. • A Rehabilitation Management Plan should be developed and implemented during the construction phase as construction is complete at each site. • Measures should be put in place to prevent the accidental or unintentional introduction of alien vegetation during rehabilitation. • The development footprints and immediate surroundings should be monitored for the growth/regrowth of alien vegetation throughout the construction phase. • Indigenous species must be used for rehabilitation.

9.3.2. Operational Phase Recommendations

9.3.3. Decommissioning Phase Recommendations

CES 62 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

It is highly unlikely that the proposed grid infrastructure development would be decommissioned in the short term because the infrastructure will form part of the Albany WEF, which has a lifespan of approximately 20 to 25 years. In the unlikely event that the grid infrastructure is decommissioned subsequent to the WEF lifespan, the impacts are likely to be similar to those identified for the construction phase. The mitigation measures, which have been identified for the construction phase, will need to be updated by a suitably qualified specialist and implemented during the decommissioning phase to reduce the likelihood of adverse ecological impacts within the development site.

9.4. CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of this Ecological Impact Assessment, it is the opinion of the Ecological Specialist/(s) that, provided that the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, the proposed Albany WEF development will have no high residual negative impacts associated with it. It is important to note that no-go areas must avoided and the recommended mitigation measures which are stipulated in this report and in the EMPr, are carefully implemented and monitored during the phases of development. No fatal flaws, relating to the ecological aspects of the proposed site, have been identified for the preferred layout alternative.

There is therefore no reason, in terms of the ecological sensitivity, that the proposed Albany WEF development should not be authorised.

CES 63 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

10. ALBANY GRID INFRASTRUCTURE: CONCLUDING REMARKS

10.1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GRID INFRASTRUCTURE

Table 9-2 below consists of a summary of the ecological impacts associated with the proposed Albany grid infrastructure, including both overhead line alternatives, as well as the impacts associated within the no-go alternative.

Table 9-2: Albany Grid Infrastructure Ecological Impacts Summary. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE NO-GO IMPACT WITHOUT WITH ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION MITIGATION PLANNING & DESIGN PHASE No direct, indirect or cumulative ecological impacts have been identified for the Planning and Design Phase of the proposed Albany grid infrastructure because no tangible alterations to the environment will occur within the proposed site during this phase. CONSTRUCTION PHASE 1. Faunal Habitat Loss and Fragmentation MODERATE (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 2. Loss of Reptile Diversity MODERATE (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 3. Loss of Amphibian Diversity MODERATE (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 4. Loss of Mammal Diversity LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 5. Impact of Noise and Dust on Faunal Species LOW (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 6. Loss of Vegetation Communities MODERATE (-) LOW (-) LOW (-) 7. Removal of Alien Vegetation LOW (+) LOW (+) LOW (-) 8. Pollution of Surface Water Resources MODERATE (-) LOW (-) N/A 9. Rehabilitation MODERATE (-) LOW (-) N/A OPERATIONAL PHASE 7. Invasion of alien vegetation MODERATE (-) LOW (+) LOW (-) DECOMMISSIONING PHASE It is highly unlikely that the proposed grid infrastructure development would be decommissioned in the short term because the infrastructure will form part of the Albany WEF, which has a lifespan of approximately 20 to 25 years. In the unlikely event that the grid infrastructure is decommissioned subsequent to the WEF lifespan, the impacts are likely to be similar to those identified for the construction phase. The mitigation measures, which have been identified for the construction phase, will need to be updated by a suitably qualified specialist and implemented during the decommissioning phase to reduce the likelihood of adverse ecological impacts within the development site.

10.2. SPECIALIST STATEMENT

No fatal flaws were identified during the ecological impact assessment; however, the following areas of high ecological sensitivity, in proximity to the proposed development, must be “no-go” areas for the Proposed Albany Grid Infrastructure development: • The patches of Southern Mistbelt Forest vegetation (Beggars Bush State Forest); and • The Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve.

It must be noted that, with the exception of a section of the overhead line corridor – within which the overhead line will be routed, the current grid infrastructure layout avoids all of these no-go areas.

CES 64 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

10.3. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GRID INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT

Micro-siting must be undertaken to determine the least sensitive locations for the placement of overhead line pylons. If species are encountered which require removal and/or relocation, the appropriate permissions must be obtained prior to the commencement of vegetation clearance in the identified areas. The approvals/permits may be subject to certain conditions, for example allowing various nurseries to collect plants before vegetation clearance commences or the removal of specific species for rehabilitation purposes.

It is recommended that the mitigation measures which are listed in sections 10.3.1, 10.3.2 and 10.3.3 are included in the Environmental Management Programme (EMPr) to reduce the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposed Albany Grid Infrastructure development.

10.3.1. Construction Phase Recommendations

• Ground truthing must be undertaken within the overhead line corridor to determine the route with the least possible damage to faunal habitats. • Clearing of vegetation must be kept to a minimum and rocky outcrops and wetlands must be avoided, where possible. • Construction areas must be demarcated with hazard tape and no clearing must occur outside of these areas. • Maintain habitat connectivity, particularly to intact habitats, via habitat corridors. • All the lizards and tortoises, which are likely to occur within the proposed site, are listed as Schedule II species on the PNCO List, and it is therefore illegal for any construction staff to remove them from the site. It will be difficult to avoid all areas where reptiles are likely to occur, but it is recommended that construction staff are educated with regards to reptile conservation and that all staff employed by the developer ensure that any reptiles encountered are not killed. Any reptiles encountered should be allowed to move away from the area but those which require relocation should be relocated in accordance with local legislation. • No reptiles must be removed from the site. • A rescue plan should be developed to protect reptiles which could fall into construction pits. • The construction of gird infrastructure on rocky outcrops should be avoided. • Speed restrictions (40 km per hour is recommended) should be in place to reduce the likelihood of animals being killed along the access roads during construction and reduce dust generated by large vehicles. • Driving within the site should be restricted to day-light hours. Driving before sunrise and after sunset should be restricted to emergencies only. • It is recommended that construction staff are educated regarding poaching and any such activities must be strictly prohibited. • All frogs and toads are listed as Schedule II species on the PNCO List and it is therefore illegal to remove them from the site. • Where possible, the placement of pylons should avoid sensitive areas or areas which have been described as valuable habitats for protected amphibian species (i.e. all aquatic habitats). • If amphibians are encountered during construction works, all construction staff should be educated with regards to amphibian conservation to ensure that they are not harmed or killed. Any amphibians encountered should be allowed to move away from the area or carefully relocated to an area within the same catchment.

CES 65 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• No amphibians will be allowed to be removed from the site. • The construction of pylons should avoid the wetland areas. • Vehicles should be well maintained so as not to leak oils and fuels which could pollute surface water sources. • Oils and fuels should be stored on impermeable surfaces, and preferably under lock and key, to reduce the likelihood of the pollution of surface water. • Where possible, existing service/access/haul roads should be used. • In the event of the unearthing of any mole species during construction, all construction staff should be educated with regards to mammal conservation to ensure that they are not killed, and any mammals encountered should be allowed to move away from the area or carefully moved to an area outside of the project activities. • Soil stockpiles should be limited to 1.5 m in height. • Construction activities such as the digging of trenches, which could result in excessive dust pollution, should preferably cease during period of high winds. • Newly cleared and exposed areas must be managed for dust and landscaped with indigenous vegetation to avoid soil erosion. Where necessary, temporary stabilization measures must be used until vegetation establishes. • Where possible, fine materials should be covered or kept in containers during transportation to avoid contamination of the surrounding areas. • A comprehensive Plant Search and Rescue must be undertaken by a suitably qualified specialist prior to vegetation clearance. • All relevant plant permits must be in place prior to the removal or removal and relocation of protected species. • Plant SCC found within the proposed site should either be housed in an onsite nursery for use during rehabilitation or be relocated to suitable areas where vegetation clearance will not occur. • Areas of the proposed site which contain large populations of SCC should be avoided where possible. • The clearance of vegetation, at any given time, should be kept to a minimum to reduce the possibility of soil erosion. • The clearing of vegetation and damage to plants must be avoided in any areas which have been demarcated as no-go areas, these include the Southern Mistbelt Forest patches (Beggars Bush State Forest) as well as the Ecca Local Authority Nature Reserve. • Where possible, all temporary infrastructure should be placed in areas which have already been transformed. • A site-specific Alien Vegetation Management Plan must be implemented during the construction phase. • Alien vegetation, within the development footprints, should be removed from the site and disposed of at a registered waste disposal site. • The development footprints and immediate surroundings should be monitored for the growth/regrowth of alien vegetation throughout the construction phase. • Where possible, the placement of pylons should avoid wetlands and tributaries. • No concrete mixing must take place within 50 m of a wetland or watercourse during the construction phase. • Concrete mixing must only take place on impermeable surfaces. • No stationary construction machinery must be stored within 50 m of a wetland or watercourse. • Construction machinery must be maintained regularly to reduce the risk of oil and fuel leaks. • All stationary machinery should be equipped with drip trays to retain potential oil and fuel leaks. • Emergency plans must be in place to remedy oil and fuel spill leaks.

CES 66 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

• A Rehabilitation Management Plan should be developed and implemented during the construction phase. • Measures should be put in place to prevent the accidental or unintentional introduction of alien vegetation during rehabilitation. • The development footprints and immediate surroundings should be monitored for the growth/regrowth of alien vegetation throughout the construction phase. • Indigenous species must be used for rehabilitation.

10.3.2. Operational Phase Recommendations

• The site-specific Alien Vegetation Management Plan must be implemented for the first two (2) years of the operational phase. Thereafter, alien vegetation should continue to be monitored and eradicated annually throughout the life of the project. • Alien vegetation, within the development footprints, should be removed from the site as they appear and must be disposed of at a registered waste disposal site.

10.3.3. Decommissioning Phase Recommendations

10.4. CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of this Ecological Impact Assessment, it is the opinion of the Ecological Specialist/(s) that the proposed Albany Grid Infrastructure development will have no high residual negative impacts associated with it, and the careful implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, which are stipulated in this report and in the EMPr, are likely to reduce the significance of the identified impacts to that of low significance. No fatal flaws, relating to the ecological aspects of the proposed site, have been identified for the proposed Grid Infrastructure development. Where possible, the placement of the overhead line pylons should avoid sensitive surface water features and rocky outcrops due to the value that these areas have for reptiles, amphibians and mammals.

There is therefore no reason, in terms of the ecological sensitivity, that the proposed Albany Grid Infrastructure development should not be authorised.

CES 67 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

11. REFERENCES

Alexander, G. And Marais, J. 2010. A Guide to Reptiles of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town. Animal Demography Unit, Department Of Zoology, University Of Cape Town. 2012. Summary Data of the Frogs of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland.

Berliner, D. and Desmet, P. 2007. Eastern Cape Biodiversity Conservation Plan Handbook. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry Project No 2005-012, King William’s Town.

Branch, W.R. 1998. Terrestrial reptiles and amphibians. In: A Field Guide to the Eastern Cape Coast, R. A. Lubke, F. W. Gess and M. N. Bruton (eds.), Grahamstown Centre for the Wildlife Soc. S. Afr., 251-264.

CapeNature. 2017. Western Cape Province State of Biodiversity (SOBD) Report. Chapter 6: Amphibians. A. Turner & A. de Villiers. CapeNature Scientific Services, Stellenbosch. ISBN: 978-0-621-45962-3.

Deckers, J., et al. 2006. World Reference Base (WRB) for Soil Resources: in a nutshell. European Soil Bureau – Research Report no. 7.

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform. 2013. National Geo-spatial Information (NGI). Online Source: www.ngi.gov.za. Accessed: 11 October 2018

Directorate: Agricultural Information Services: Department of Agriculture. 2007. Soil Potential. Pretoria: Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF).

Driver, A., et al. 2011. Implementation manual for Freshwater Ecosystem Priority Areas. WRC Report No. 1801/1/11, Pretoria: Water Research Commission, South Africa.

Driver, A., Maze, K., Rouget, M., Lombard, A.T., Nel, J., Turpie, J.K., Cowling, R.M., Desmet, P., Goodman, P., Harris, J., Jonas, Z., Reyers, B., Sink, K., & Strauss, T. 2005. National Spatial Biodiversity Assessment 2004: Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in South Africa. Strelitzia 17. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Pretoria. www.sanbi.org

Du Preez, L. And Carruthers, V. 2009. A Complete Guide to Frogs of Southern Africa. Struik Nature, Cape Town

Endangered Wildlife Trust. 2012. Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment. CBSG Southern Africa.

Fey, M. 2010. A short guide to the soils of South Africa, their distribution and correlation with World Reference Base soil groups. 19th World Congress of Soil Science: Soil Solutions for a Changing World, Australia.

Friedmann, Y. & Daly, B. 2004. Red data book of the mammals of South Africa, a conservation assessment. Johannesburg, Endangered Wildlife Trust.

ISRIC - World Soil Information. Online Source: www.isric.org. Accessed: 11 October 2018.

IUCN. 2012. Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN Species Survival Commission, Cambridge. Online Source: www.iucnredlist.org

IUSS Working Group WRB. 2006. World Reference Base for Soil Resources 2006. World Soil Resources Reports No. 103. FAO, Rome.

Le Roux, J. 2011. Monitoring soil erosion in South Africa at a regional scale. Agricultural Research Council Institute for Soil, Climate and Water. ARC-ISCW report no GW/A/2011/23 Project GW 59/004 Task 50.

Mucina, L. and Rutherford, M. C. 2006. The vegetation of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Strelitzia 19, Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.

CES 68 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Palmer, T. 2004. Vegetation of Makana. Makana LEAP: Comprehensive Environmental Audit: Vegetation of Makana.

Ritter, J. 2012. Soil Erosion: Causes and Effects. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Resource Centre. OMAFRA Factsheet.

Sadler. 1996. Environmental Assessment in a Changing World: Evaluating practice to Improve Performance. International Study of the Effectiveness of Environmental Assessment Final Report. International Association for Impact Assessment and Canadian Environment Assessment Agency, Canada.

Samadi, M., et al. 2000. The development of a world soils and terrain (SOTER) digital database for South Africa. Agricultural Research Council (ARC) - Institute for Soil, Climate and Water (ISCW). South Africa.

SANBI. 2012. The vegetation Map of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland (shapefiles), Pretoria: South African National Biodiversity Institute.

SANBI. 2014. Atlas and Red List of the Reptiles of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland. Suricata 1. M. Bates, W. Branch, A. Bauer, M. Burger, J. Marais, G. Alexander & M. de Villiers.

SANBI. 2014. Statistics: Red List of South African Plants version 2014.1. Online Source: Redlist.sanbi.org.

SANBI. 2016. The Red List of Mammals of South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho. M. Child, L. Roxburgh, E. Do Linh San, D. Raimondo & H. Davies-Mostert. Endangered Wildlife Trust, South African National Biodiversity Institute, University of Fort Hare and the University of Pretoria.

Strohbach, B. & Kutuahuripa, J. 2014. Vegetation of the Eastern Communal Conservancies in Namibia: II. Environmental drivers. AOSIS Publishing. Koedoe: Vol 56, No 1.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2008. Soil Quality Indicators. Online Source: www.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed: 4 October 2018

World Weather and Climate Information. Online Source: www.weather-and-climate.com.

CES 69 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

APPENDIX A-1 CES IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The CES impact assessment methodology below was used to determine the significance of the potential ecological impacts associated with the proposed Albany WEF and the proposed Albany Grid Infrastructure developments.

NATURE

Positive Beneficial/positive impact. Negative Adverse/negative impact. TYPE Direct Direct interaction of an activity with the environment.

DESCRIPTION Indirect Impacts on the environment that are not a direct result of the project or activity. Impacts which may result from a combination of impacts of this project and similar related Cumulative projects. DURATION Short term Less than 5 years Medium term Between 5 and 20 years Long term Between 20 and 40 years (a generation) and from a human perspective also permanent Permanent Over 40 years and resulting in a permanent and lasting change that will always be there EXTENT

Localised At localised scale and a few hectares in extent Study Area The proposed site and its immediate surroundings

EFFECT Regional District and Provincial level National Country International Internationally CONSEQUENCE Slight/ Slightly Beneficial Slight impacts or benefits on the affected system(s) or party(ies). Moderate / Moderately Beneficial Moderate impacts or benefits on the affected system(s) or party(ies). Severe/ Beneficial Severe impacts or benefits on the affected system(s) or party(ies). Very Severe/ Very Beneficial Very Severe impacts or benefits to the affected system(s) or party(ies).

LIKELIHOOD Unlikely The likelihood of these impacts occurring is slight. May Occur The likelihood of these impacts occurring is possible. Probable The likelihood of these impacts occurring is probable. LIKELIHOOD Definite The likelihood is that this impact will occur. An acceptable impact for which mitigation is desirable but not essential. The impact by itself is insufficient even in combination with other low impacts to Low (-) Low (+) prevent the development being approved. These impacts will result in either positive or negative medium to short term effects on the social and/or natural environment An important impact which requires mitigation. The impact is insufficient by itself to prevent the implementation of the project but which in conjunction Moderate (-) Moderate (+) with other impacts may prevent its implementation. These impacts will usually result in either a positive or negative medium to long term effect on the social and/or natural environment A serious impact, if not mitigated, may prevent the implementation of the project (if it is a negative impact). These impacts would be considered by High (-) High (+) SIGNIFICANCERATE society as constituting a major and usually long-term change to the (natural and/or social) environment and result in severe effects or beneficial effect. A very serious impact which, if negative, may be sufficient by itself to prevent implementation of the project. The impact may result in permanent change. Very High (-) Very High (+) Very often these impacts are immitigable and usually result in very severe effects, or very beneficial effects.

CES 70 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

APPENDIX A-2 REPTILE SPECIES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROPOSED SITE

SA RED LIST REGION RECORDED SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME CATEGORY IUCN NEM:BA CITES PNCO ENDEMIC ON SITE (SARCA) Acontias gracilicauda Thin-tailed Legless Skink Least Concern - - - - Yes -

Acontias meleagris Cape Legless Skink Least Concern - - - - Yes -

Acontias orientalis Eastern Legless Skink Least Concern - - - - Yes Yes

Afrotyphlops bibronii Bibron's Blind Snake Least Concern - - - - - Yes

Agama atra Southern Rock Agama Least Concern - - - - - Yes

Aparallactus capensis Black-headed Centipede-eater Least Concern ------

Bitis arietans arietans Puff Adder Least Concern ------

Boaedon capensis Brown House Snake Least Concern - - - Schedule II - Yes

Bradypodion ventrale Eastern Cape Dwarf Chameleon Least Concern - - Appendix II - Yes -

Causus rhombeatus Rhombic Night Adder Least Concern - - - - - Yes

Chamaesaura anguina anguina Cape Grass Lizard Least Concern - - - Schedule II Yes -

Chersina angulata Angulate Tortoise Least Concern - - Appendix II Schedule II - -

Chondrodactylus bibronii Bibron's Gecko Least Concern ------

Cordylus cordylus Cape Girdled Lizard Least Concern - - Appendix II Schedule II Yes Yes

Crotaphopeltis hotamboeia Red-lipped Snake Least Concern ------

Dasypeltis scabra Rhombic egg-eater Least Concern - - - Schedule II - -

Dasypeltis inornata Southern Brown Egg-eater Least Concern - - - Schedule II Yes -

CES 71 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Dispholidus typus typus Boomslang Least Concern ------

Duberria lutrix lutrix South African Slug-eater Least Concern - - - Schedule II Yes Yes

Goggia essexi Essex's Pygmy Gecko Least Concern - - - - Yes Yes

Hemachatus haemachatus Rinkhals Least Concern ------

Homopus areolatus Parrot-beaked Tortoise Least Concern - - Appendix II Schedule II Yes Yes

Homoroselaps lacteus Spotted Harlequin Snake Least Concern - - - - Yes -

Lamprophis fuscus Yellow-bellied House Snake Least Concern - - - Schedule II Yes -

Leptotyphlops nigricans Black Thread Snake Least Concern - - - - Yes -

Lycodonomorphus rufulus Brown Water Snake Least Concern - - - Schedule II - Yes

Lycodonomorphus inornatus Olive House Snake Least Concern - - - Schedule II Yes -

Lycodonomorphus laevissimus Dusky-bellied Water Snake Least Concern - - - Schedule II Yes -

Lycophidion capense capense Cape Wolf Snake Least Concern - - - Schedule II - -

Lygodactylus capensis capense Common Dwarf Gecko Least Concern ------

Naja mossambica Mozambique Spitting Cobra Least Concern ------

Naja nivea Cape Cobra Least Concern ------

Nucras lalandii Delalande’s Sandveld Lizard Least Concern - - - Schedule II - Yes

Nucras taeniolata Albany Sandveld Lizard Near Threatened - - - Schedule II Yes -

Pachydactylus maculatus Spotted Gecko Least Concern - - - - - Yes

Pachydactylus maculatus Spotted Gecko Least Concern ------

Pachydactylus mariquensis Marico Gecko Least Concern - - - - Yes -

CES 72 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Pedioplanis burchelli Burchell's Sand Lizard Least Concern - - - Schedule II Yes Yes

Pedioplanis lineoocellata Common Sand Lizard Least Concern - - - Schedule II - - pulchella Pelomedusa galeata South African Marsh Terrapin Not evaluated ------Pelomedusa subrufa Central Marsh Terrapin Least Concern ------

Philothamnus natalensis Western Natal Green Snake Least Concern - - - Schedule II Yes - occidentalis

Philothamnus semivariegatus Spotted Bush Snake Least Concern - - - Schedule II - -

Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Whip Snake Least Concern - - - - - Yes

Psammophis crucifer Cross-marked Grass Snake Least Concern ------

Psammophis notostictus Karoo Sand Snake Least Concern ------

Psammophylax rhombeatus Spotted Grass Snake/Skaapsteker Least Concern - - - - - Yes rhombeatus

Python natalensis Southern African Python Least Concern - P Appendix II - - -

Rhinotyphlops lalandei Delalande's Beaked Blind Snake Least Concern - - - - - Yes

Scelotes caffer Cape Dwarf Burrowing Skink Least Concern - - - - Yes -

Stigmochelys pardalis Leopard Tortoise Least Concern - - Appendix II Schedule II - -

Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern ------

Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern - - - - - Yes

Trachylepis capensis Cape Skink Least Concern ------

CES 73 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Trachylepis homalocephala Red-sided Skink Least Concern - - - - Yes -

Trachylepis varia Variable Skink Least Concern - - - - - Yes

Trachylepis varia Variable Skink Least Concern ------

Tropidosaura montana rangeri Ranger's Mountain Lizard Not listed - - - Schedule II - Yes

Varanus albigularis albigularis Rock Monitor Least Concern ------

Varanus niloticus Water Monitor Least Concern - - Appendix II - - -

CES 74 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

APPENDIX A-3 AMPHIBIAN SPECIES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROPOSED SITE

RECORDED ON SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME IUCN NEM:BA CITES PNCO SITE Amietia delalandii Delalande's River Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Breviceps adspersus Bushveld Rain Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Yes Cacosternum boettgeri Boettger's Caco Least Concern - - Schedule II Yes Cacosternum nanum Bronze Caco Least Concern - - Schedule II Yes Hyperolius marmoratus Painted Reed Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Yes Hyperolius semidiscus Yellowstriped Reed Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Kassina senegalensis Bubbling Kassina Least Concern - - Schedule II Yes Pyxicephalus adspersus Giant Bull Frog Near Threatened - - Schedule II Sclerophrys capensis Raucous Toad Least Concern - - Schedule II Yes Sclerophrys pardalis Leopard Toad Least Concern - - Schedule II Semnodactylus wealii Rattling Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Strongylopus fasciatus Striped Stream Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Tomopterna natalensis Natal Sand Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Tomopterna tandyi Tandy's Sand Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Vandijkophrynus gariepensis Karoo Toad (subsp. gariepensis) Not listed - - Schedule II gariepensis Xenopus laevis Common Platanna Least Concern - - Schedule II Yes Strongylopis grayii Clicking Stream Frog Least Concern - - Schedule II Yes

CES 75 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

APPENDIX A-4 MAMMAL SPECIES WHICH HAVE DISTRIBUTION RANGES WHICH INCLUDE THE PROPOSED SITE

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME SA RED LIST IUCN NEM:BA PNCO Acomys subspinosus Cape Spiny Mouse LC LC - - Amblysomus hottentotus Hottentot Golden Mole LC LC - - Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter LC LC - - Atelerix frontalis South African Hedgehog NT LC PR Schedule II Atilax paludinosus Marsh Mongoose LC LC - - Canis mesomelus Black-backed Jackal LC LC - - Caracal caracal African Caracal LC LC - - Cercopithecus pygerythrus Vervet Monkey LC LC - - Chrysospalax trevelyani Giant Golden Mole VU EN VU - Crocidura cyanea Reddish-gray Musk Shrew LC LC - - Crocidura flavescens Greater Red Musk Shrew LC LC - - Cryptomys hottentotus African Mole Rat LC LC - - Cynictis penicillata Yellow Mongoose LC LC - - Dendrohyrax arboreus Southern Tree Hyrax LC LC - - Dendromus melanotis Gray African Climbing Mouse LC LC - - Desmodillus auricularis Cape Short-eared Gerbil LC LC - - Elephantulus rupestris Western Rock Sengi LC LC - - Elephantulus edwardii Cape Rock Elephant-shrew LC LC - - Epomophorus wahlbergi Wahlberg's Epauletted Fruit Bat LC LC - Schedule II Eptesicus hottentotus Long-tailed Greater Serotine Bat LC LC - - Felis silvestris lybica Wildcat, Wild Cat LC LC - - Felis nigripes Black-footed Cat LC PR - Schedule II Galerella pulverulenta Cape Grey Mongoose LC LC - - Genetta genetta Common Genet LC LC - - Genetta tigrina Cape Genet LC LC - - Georychus capensis Cape Mole Rat LC LC - - Grammomys dolichurus Woodland Thicket Rat LC LC - -

CES 76 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Graphiurus kelleni Kellen's Dormouse LC LC - - Graphiurus murinus Woodland Dormouse LC LC - - Graphiurus ocularis Spectacled Dormouse LC LC - - Hyaena brunnea Brown Hyaena NT LC PR Schedule II Hystrix africaeaustralis Cape Porcupine LC LC - - Ichneumia albicauda White-tailed Mongoose LC LC - - Ictonyx stiatus Striped Polecat LC LC - Schedule II Kerivoula lanosa Lesser Woolly Bat NT LC - Schedule II Lepus saxatilis Scrub Hare LC LC - - Mastomys coucha Southern Multimammate Mouse LC LC - - Mastomys natalensis Natal Multimammate Mouse LC LC - - Mellivora capensis Honey Badger NT LC PR - Micaelamys namaquensis Namaqua Rock Rat LC LC - - Miniopterus schreibersii Schreiber's Bent-winged Bat LC NT - Schedule II Miniopterus fracterculus Lesser Long-fingered bat NT LC - Schedule II Miniopterus natalensis Natal Long-fingered bat NT LC - Schedule II Mus minutoides Pygmy Mouse LC LC - - Mus musculus House Mouse LC LC - - Myosorex sclateri Sclater's Tiny Mouse Shrew EN LC - Schedule II Myotis tricolor Temminck's Mouse-eared Bat NT LC - Schedule II Mystromys albicaudatus White-tailed Mouse EN LC - - Neoromicia capensis Cape Bat LC LC - - Nycteris thebaica Egyptian Slit-faced bat LC LC - Schedule II Orycteropus afer Aardvark, Antbear LC LC - Schedule II Otocyon megalotis Bat-eared Fox LC LC - Schedule II Otomys irroratus Southern African Vlei Rat LC LC - - Otomys saundersiae Saunder's Vlei Rat LC LC - - Panthera pardus Leopard LC LC VU Schedule II Papio cynocephalus ursinus Chacma Baboon LC LC - - Pedetes capensis Spring Hare LC LC - -

CES 77 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Phacochoerus africanus Common Warthog LC LC - Schedule II Philantomba monticola Blue Duiker VU LC VU Schedule II Pipistrellus hesperidus African Pipistrelle LC LC - Schedule II Poecilogale albinucha African Striped Weasel LC LC - - Potamochoerus larvatus Bushpig LC LC - - Procavia capensis Rock Dassie LC LC - - Pronolagus saundersiae Hewitt's Red Rock Hare LC LC - - Pronolagus rupestris rupestris Smith's Red Rock Hare LC LC - - Proteles cristatus Aardwolf LC LC - Schedule II Raphicerus campestris Steenbok LC LC - - Raphicerus melanotis Cape Grysbok LC LC - - Rattus rattus House Rat LC LC - - Redunca fulvorufula Mountain Reedbuck LC LC - Schedule II Rhabdomys pumilio Four-striped Grass Mouse LC LC - - Rhinolophus capensis Cape Horseshoe Bat NT LC - Schedule II Rhinolophus clivosus Geoffroy's Horseshoe Bat LC LC - Schedule II Rhinolophus swinnyi Swinny's Horseshoe Bat EN LC - Schedule II Rousettus aegyptiacus Egyptian Fruit Bat LC LC - Schedule II Scotophilus dinganii African Yellow House Bat LC LC - Schedule II Suncus infinitesimus Least Dwarf Shrew LC LC - - Suncus varilla Lesser Dwarf Shrew LC LC - - Suricata suricata Meerkat LC LC - - Sylvicarpa grimmia Common duiker LC LC - - Tadarida aegyptiaca Egyptian Free-tailed Bat LC LC - Schedule II Taphozous mauritianus Mauritian Tomb Bat LC LC - Schedule II Thryonomys swinderianus Greater Cane Rat LC LC - - Tragelaphus scriptus Bushbuck LC LC - Schedule II Tragelaphus strepsiceros Greater Kudu LC LC - Schedule II Vulpes chama Cape Fox LC LC PR Schedule II

CES 78 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

APPENDIX A-5 BIRD SPECIES WHICH ARE LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHIN THE PROPOSED SITE

CES 79 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME SA RED LIST IUCN NEM:BA CITES PNCO Apalis, Bar-throated Apalis thoracica _ _ _ _ _ Apalis, Yellow-breasted Apalis flavida _ _ _ _ _ Barbet, Acacia Pied Tricholaema leucomelas _ _ _ _ _ Barbet, Black-collared Lybius torquatus _ _ _ _ _ Batis, Cape Batis capensis _ _ _ _ _ Batis, Chinspot Batis molitor _ _ _ _ _ Bee-eater, European Merops apiaster _ _ _ _ _ Bishop, Southern Red Euplectes orix _ _ _ _ _ Bishop, Yellow Euplectes capensis _ _ _ _ _ Bishop, Yellow-crowned Euplectes afer _ _ _ _ _ Blackcap, Bush Lioptilus nigricapillus VU NT _ _ Schedule II Bokmakierie, Bokmakierie Telophorus zeylonus _ _ _ _ _ Boubou, Southern Laniarius ferrugineus _ _ _ _ _ Brownbul, Terrestrial Phyllastrephus terrestris _ _ _ _ _ Bulbul, Cape Pycnonotus capensis _ _ _ _ _ Bulbul, Dark-capped Pycnonotus tricolor _ _ _ _ _ Bunting, Cape Emberiza capensis _ _ _ _ _ Bunting, Cinnamon-breasted Emberiza tahapisi _ _ _ _ _ Bunting, Golden-breasted Emberiza flaviventris _ _ _ _ _ Bush-shrike, Grey-headed Malaconotus blanchoti _ _ _ _ _ Bush-shrike, Olive Telophorus olivaceus _ _ _ _ _ Bush-shrike, Orange-breasted Telophorus sulfureopectus _ _ _ _ _ Bustard, Denham's Neotis denhami VU NT PR _ Schedule II Buzzard, Jackal Buteo rufofuscus _ LC _ _ _ Buzzard, Steppe Buteo vulpinus _ - _ _ _ Camaroptera, Green-backed Camaroptera brachyura _ LC _ _ _ Camaroptera, Grey-backed Camaroptera brevicaudata _ - _ _ _ Canary, Brimstone Crithagra sulphuratus Gonepteryx cleobule _ VU _ _ _

Canary, Cape Serinus canicollis _ _ _ _ _ Canary, Forest Crithagra scotops Serinus scotops _ _ _ _ _

CES 80 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Canary, White-throated Crithagra albogularis Serinus albogularis _ _ _ _ _

Canary, Yellow Crithagra flaviventris Serinus flaviventris _ _ _ _ _

Canary, Yellow-fronted Crithagra mozambicus Serinus mozambicus _ _ _ _ _

Chat, Anteater Myrmecocichla formicivora _ _ _ _ _ Chat, Familiar Cercomela familiaris _ _ _ _ _ Cisticola, Cloud Cisticola textrix _ _ _ _ _ Cisticola, Grey-backed Cisticola subruficapilla _ _ _ _ _ Cisticola, Lazy Cisticola aberrans _ _ _ _ _ Cisticola, Levaillant's Cisticola tinniens _ _ _ _ _ Cisticola, Wailing Cisticola lais _ _ _ _ _ Cisticola, Wing-snapping Cisticola ayresii _ _ _ _ _ Cisticola, Zitting Cisticola juncidis _ _ _ _ _ Cliff-chat, Mocking Thamnolaea cinnamomeiventris _ _ _ _ _ Coot, Red-knobbed Fulica cristata _ _ _ _ _ Cormorant, Reed Phalacrocorax africanus _ _ _ _ _ Cormorant, White-breasted Great Phalacrocorax carbo _ _ _ _ _ Coucal, Burchell's Centropus burchellii _ _ _ _ _ Coucal, White-browed Centropus superciliosus _ _ _ _ _ Crane, Blue Anthropoides paradiseus NT VU EN _ Schedule II Crested-flycatcher, Blue-mantled Trochocercus cyanomelas _ _ _ _ _ Crombec, Long-billed Cape Sylvietta rufescens _ _ _ _ _ Crow, Cape Corvus capensis _ _ _ _ _ Crow, Pied Corvus albus _ _ _ _ _ Cuckoo, African Emerald Chrysococcyx cupreus _ _ _ _ _ Cuckoo, Black Cuculus clamosus _ _ _ _ _ Cuckoo, Diderick Chrysococcyx caprius _ _ _ _ _ Cuckoo, Jacobin Clamator jacobinus _ _ _ _ _ Cuckoo, Klaas's Chrysococcyx klaas _ _ _ _ _

CES 81 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Cuckoo, Red-chested Cuculus solitarius _ _ _ _ _ Cuckoo-shrike, Black Campephaga flava _ _ _ _ _ Cuckoo-shrike, Grey Coracina caesia _ _ _ _ _ Darter, African Anhinga rufa _ _ _ _ _ Dove, Laughing Streptopelia Spilopelia senegalensis _ _ _ _ _ Dove, Lemon Aplopelia larvata _ _ _ _ _ Dove, Namaqua Oena capensis _ _ _ _ _ Dove, Red-eyed Streptopelia semitorquata _ _ _ _ _ Dove, Rock Columba livia _ _ _ _ _ Dove, Tambourine Turtur tympanistria _ _ _ _ _ Drongo, Fork-tailed Dicrurus adsimilis _ _ _ _ _ Duck, African Black Anas sparsa _ _ _ _ _ Duck, Yellow-billed Anas undulata _ _ _ _ _ Eagle, African Crowned Stephanoaetus coronatus VU NT _ _ Schedule II Eagle, Booted Aquila pennatus Hieraaetus pennatus _ LC _ _ _ Eagle, Long-crested Lophaetus occipitalis _ LC _ _ _ Eagle, Martial Polemaetus bellicosus EN VU VU _ Schedule II Eagle-owl, Spotted Bubo africanus _ LC _ _ _ Egret, Cattle Bubulcus ibis _ LC _ _ _ Egret, Great White Egretta Ardeaalba _ LC _ _ _ Egret, Little Egretta garzetta _ LC _ _ _ Egret, Yellow-billed Egretta intermedia Ardea brachyrhyncha _ LC _ _ _

Falcon, Lanner Falco biarmicus VU LC _ _ Schedule II Finch, Red-headed Amadina erythrocephala _ LC _ _ _ Finfoot, African Podica senegalensis VU LC _ _ Schedule II Firefinch, African Lagonosticta rubricata _ _ _ _ _ Fiscal, Common (Southern) Lanius collaris _ _ _ _ _ Fish-eagle, African Haliaeetus vocifer _ _ _ _ _ Flufftail, Red-chested Sarothrura rufa _ _ _ _ _

CES 82 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Flycatcher, African Dusky Muscicapa adusta _ _ _ _ _ Flycatcher, Fiscal Sigelus silens _ _ _ _ _ Flycatcher, Southern Black Melaenornis pammelaina _ _ _ _ _ Flycatcher, Spotted Muscicapa striata _ _ _ _ _ Francolin, Grey-winged Scleroptila africanus afra _ _ _ _ _ Francolin, Red-winged Scleroptila levaillantii _ _ _ _ _ Goose, Egyptian Alopochen aegyptiacus _ _ _ _ _ Goose, Spur-winged Plectropterus gambensis _ _ _ _ _ Goshawk, African Accipiter tachiro _ _ _ _ _ Goshawk, Southern Pale Chanting Melierax canorus _ _ _ _ _ Grassbird, Cape Sphenoeacus afer _ _ _ _ _ Grebe, Black-necked Podiceps nigricollis _ _ _ _ _ Grebe, Little Tachybaptus ruficollis _ _ _ _ _ Green-pigeon, African Treron calvus _ _ _ _ _ Greenbul, Sombre Andropadus importunus _ _ _ _ _ Greenshank, Common Tringa nebularia _ _ _ _ _ Ground-hornbill, Southern Bucorvus leadbeateri _ VU PR _ Schedule II Guineafowl, Helmeted Numida meleagris _ _ _ _ _ Hamerkop, Hamerkop Scopus umbretta _ _ _ _ _ Harrier, Black Circus maurus EN VU _ _ Schedule II Harrier-Hawk, African Polyboroides typus _ _ _ _ _ Heron, Black-headed Ardea melanocephala _ _ _ _ _ Heron, Grey Ardea cinerea _ _ _ _ _ Honeybird, Brown-backed Prodotiscus regulus _ _ _ _ _ Honeyguide, Greater Indicator indicator _ _ _ _ _ Honeyguide, Lesser Indicator minor _ _ _ _ _ Honeyguide, Scaly-throated Indicator variegatus _ _ _ _ _ Hoopoe, African Upupa africana _ _ _ _ _ Hornbill, Crowned Tockus alboterminatus _ _ _ _ _ House-martin, Common Delichon urbicum _ _ _ _ _

CES 83 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Ibis, African Sacred Threskiornis aethiopicus _ _ _ _ _ Ibis, Hadeda Bostrychia hagedash _ _ _ _ _ Indigobird, Dusky Vidua funerea _ _ _ _ _ Jacana, African Actophilornis africanus _ _ _ _ _ Kestrel, Rock Falco rupicolus _ _ _ _ _ Kingfisher, Brown-hooded Halcyon albiventris _ _ _ _ _ Kingfisher, Giant Megaceryle maximus _ _ _ _ _ Kingfisher, Half-collared Alcedo semitorquata NT LC _ _ Schedule II Kingfisher, Malachite Alcedo cristata _ _ _ _ _ Kingfisher, Pied Ceryle rudis _ _ _ _ _ Kite, Black-shouldered Elanus caeruleus _ _ _ _ _ Kite, Yellow-billed Milvus aegyptius _ _ _ _ _ Korhaan, Southern Black Afrotis afra VU VU _ _ Schedule II Lapwing, Black-winged Vanellus melanopterus _ _ _ _ _ Lapwing, Blacksmith Vanellus armatus _ _ _ _ _ Lapwing, Crowned Vanellus coronatus _ _ _ _ _ Lark, Agulhas Clapper Mirafra marjoriae _ _ _ _ _ Lark, Cape Clapper Mirafra apiata _ _ _ _ _ Lark, Eastern Clapper Mirafra fasciolata _ _ _ _ _ Lark, Red-capped Calandrella cinerea _ _ _ _ _ Lark, Rufous-naped Mirafra africana _ _ _ _ _ Longclaw, Cape Macronyx capensis _ _ _ _ _ Mannikin, Bronze Spermestes cucullatus _ _ _ _ _ Marsh-harrier, African Circus ranivorus _ _ _ _ _ Martin, Brown-throated Riparia paludicola _ _ _ _ _ Martin, Rock Hirundo fuligula _ _ _ _ _ Masked-weaver, Southern Ploceus velatus _ _ _ _ _ Moorhen, Common Gallinula chloropus _ _ _ _ _ Mousebird, Red-faced Urocolius indicus _ _ _ _ _ Mousebird, Speckled Colius striatus _ _ _ _ _

CES 84 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Neddicky, Neddicky Cisticola fulvicapilla _ _ _ _ _ Night-Heron, Black-crowned Nycticorax nycticorax _ _ _ _ _ Nightjar, Fiery-necked Caprimulgus pectoralis _ _ _ _ _ Olive-pigeon, African Columba arquatrix _ _ _ _ _ Oriole, Black-headed Oriolus larvatus _ _ _ _ _ Oriole, Eurasian Golden Oriolus oriolus _ _ _ _ _ Ostrich, Common Struthio camelus _ _ _ _ _ Owl, Barn Tyto alba _ _ _ _ _ Owl, Marsh Asio capensis _ _ _ _ _ Palm-swift, African Cypsiurus parvus _ _ _ _ _ Paradise-flycatcher, African Terpsiphone viridis _ _ _ _ _ Penduline-tit, Cape Anthoscopus minutus _ _ _ _ _ Petronia, Yellow-throated Petronia superciliaris _ _ _ _ _ Pigeon, Speckled Columba guinea _ _ _ _ _ Pipit, African Anthus cinnamomeus _ _ _ _ _ Pipit, Buffy Anthus vaalensis _ _ _ _ _ Pipit, Long-billed Anthus similis _ _ _ _ _ Pipit, Plain-backed Anthus leucophrys _ _ _ _ _ Plover, Kittlitz's Charadrius pecuarius _ _ _ _ _ Plover, Three-banded Charadrius tricollaris _ _ _ _ _ Pochard, Southern Netta erythrophthalma _ _ _ _ _ Prinia, Drakensberg Prinia hypoxantha _ _ _ _ _ Prinia, Karoo Prinia maculosa _ _ _ _ _ Prinia, Tawny-flanked Prinia subflava _ _ _ _ _ Puffback, Black-backed Dryoscopus cubla _ _ _ _ _ Pygmy-Kingfisher, African Ispidina picta _ _ _ _ _ Quail, Common Coturnix coturnix _ _ _ _ _ Quailfinch, African Ortygospiza atricollis _ _ _ _ _ Raven, White-necked Corvus albicollis _ _ _ _ _ Robin, White-starred Pogonocichla stellata _ _ _ _ _

CES 85 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Robin-chat, Cape Cossypha caffra _ _ _ _ _ Robin-chat, Chorister Cossypha dichroa _ _ _ _ _ Rock-thrush, Cape Monticola rupestris _ _ _ _ _ Rock-thrush, Sentinel Monticola explorator _ _ _ _ _ Ruff, Ruff Philomachus pugnax _ _ _ _ _ Rush-warbler, Little Bradypterus baboecala _ _ _ _ _ Sandpiper, Common Actitis hypoleucos _ _ _ _ _ Sandpiper, Marsh Tringa stagnatilis _ _ _ _ _ Sandpiper, Wood Tringa glareola _ _ _ _ _ Saw-wing, Black (Southern race) Psalidoprocne holomelaena _ _ _ _ _ Scrub-robin, Brown Cercotrichas signata _ _ _ _ _ Scrub-robin, Karoo Cercotrichas coryphoeus _ _ _ _ _ Scrub-robin, White-browed Cercotrichas leucophrys _ _ _ _ _ Secretarybird, Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU VU _ _ Schedule II Seedeater, Streaky-headed Crithagra gularis _ _ _ _ _ Shelduck, South African Tadorna cana _ _ _ _ _ Shoveler, Cape Anas smithii _ _ _ _ _ Snipe, African Gallinago nigripennis _ _ _ _ _ Sparrow, Cape Passer melanurus _ _ _ _ _ Sparrow, House Passer domesticus _ _ _ _ _ Sparrow, Northern Grey-headed Passer griseus _ _ _ _ _ Sparrow, Southern Grey-headed Passer diffusus _ _ _ _ _ Sparrowhawk, Black Accipiter melanoleucus _ _ _ _ _ Sparrowhawk, Little Accipiter minullus _ _ _ _ _ Sparrowhawk, Rufous-chested Accipiter rufiventris _ _ _ _ _ Spoonbill, African Platalea alba _ _ _ _ _ Spurfowl, Red-necked Pternistis afer _ _ _ _ _ Starling, Black-bellied Lamprotornis corruscus _ _ _ _ _ Starling, Cape Glossy Lamprotornis nitens _ _ _ _ _ Starling, Common Sturnus vulgaris _ _ _ _ _

CES 86 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Starling, Pied Spreo bicolor _ _ _ _ _ Starling, Red-winged Onychognathus morio _ _ _ _ _ Starling, Wattled Creatophora cinerea _ _ _ _ _ Stilt, Black-winged Himantopus himantopus _ _ _ _ _ Stint, Little Calidris minuta _ _ _ _ _ Stonechat, African Saxicola torquatus _ _ _ _ _ Stork, Black Ciconia nigra VU LC VU Appendix II Schedule II Stork, White Ciconia ciconia _ _ _ _ _ Stork, Yellow-billed Mycteria ibis EN LC _ _ Schedule II Sugarbird, Cape Promerops cafer _ _ _ _ _ Sunbird, Amethyst Chalcomitra amethystina _ _ _ _ _ Sunbird, Collared Hedydipna collaris _ _ _ _ _ Sunbird, Greater Double-collared Cinnyris afer _ _ _ _ _ Sunbird, Grey Cyanomitra veroxii _ _ _ _ _ Sunbird, Malachite Nectarinia famosa _ _ _ _ _ Sunbird, Southern Double-collared Cinnyris chalybeus _ _ _ _ _ Swallow, Barn Hirundo rustica _ _ _ _ _ Swallow, Greater Striped Hirundo cucullata _ _ _ _ _ Swallow, Lesser Striped Hirundo abyssinica _ _ _ _ _ Swallow, Pearl-breasted Hirundo dimidiata _ _ _ _ _ Swallow, White-throated Hirundo albigularis _ _ _ _ _ Swamp-warbler, Lesser Acrocephalus gracilirostris _ _ _ _ _ Swift, African Black Apus barbatus _ _ _ _ _ Swift, Alpine Tachymarptis melba _ _ _ _ _ Swift, Horus Apus horus _ _ _ _ _ Swift, Little Apus affinis _ _ _ _ _ Swift, White-rumped Apus caffer _ _ _ _ _ Tchagra, Southern Tchagra tchagra _ _ _ _ _ Teal, Red-billed Anas erythrorhyncha _ _ _ _ _ Tern, Whiskered Chlidonias hybrida _ _ _ _ _

CES 87 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Tern, White-winged Chlidonias leucopterus _ _ _ _ _ Thick-knee, Spotted Burhinus capensis _ _ _ _ _ Thrush, Karoo Turdus smithi _ _ _ _ _ Thrush, Olive Turdus olivaceus _ _ _ _ _ Tinkerbird, Red-fronted Pogoniulus pusillus _ _ _ _ _ Tit, Southern Black Parus niger _ _ _ _ _ Tit-babbler, Chestnut-vented Parisoma subcaeruleum _ _ _ _ _ Trogon, Narina Apaloderma narina _ _ _ _ _ Turaco, Knysna Tauraco corythaix _ _ _ _ _ Turaco, Livingstone's Tauraco livingstonii _ _ _ _ _ Turaco, Schalow's Tauraco schalowi _ _ _ _ _ Turtle-dove, Cape Streptopelia capicola _ _ _ _ _ Wagtail, Cape Motacilla capensis _ _ _ _ _ Wagtail, Mountain Motacilla clara _ _ _ _ _ Warbler, Barratt's Bradypterus barratti _ _ _ _ _ Warbler, Garden Sylvia borin _ _ _ _ _ Warbler, Marsh Acrocephalus palustris _ _ _ _ _ Warbler, Willow Phylloscopus trochilus _ _ _ _ _ Waxbill, Common Estrilda astrild _ _ _ _ _ Waxbill, Swee Coccopygia melanotis _ _ _ _ _ Weaver, Cape Ploceus capensis _ _ _ _ _ Weaver, Dark-backed Ploceus bicolor _ _ _ _ _ Weaver, Spectacled Ploceus ocularis _ _ _ _ _ Weaver, Thick-billed Amblyospiza albifrons _ _ _ _ _ Weaver, Village Ploceus cucullatus _ _ _ _ _ Weaver, Yellow Ploceus subaureus _ _ _ _ _ White-eye, Cape Zosterops virens _ _ _ _ _ White-eye, Orange River Zosterops pallidus _ _ _ _ _ Whydah, Pin-tailed Vidua macroura _ _ _ _ _ Widowbird, Fan-tailed Euplectes axillaris _ _ _ _ _

CES 88 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

Widowbird, Long-tailed Euplectes progne _ _ _ _ _ Widowbird, Red-collared Euplectes ardens _ _ _ _ _ Wood-dove, Emerald-spotted Turtur chalcospilos _ _ _ _ _ Wood-hoopoe, Green Phoeniculus purpureus _ _ _ _ _ Wood-owl, African Strix woodfordii _ _ _ _ _ Woodland-warbler, Yellow-throated Phylloscopus ruficapilla _ _ _ _ _ Woodpecker, Cardinal Dendropicos fuscescens _ _ _ _ _ Woodpecker, Knysna Campethera notata NT NT _ _ Schedule II Woodpecker, Olive Dendropicos griseocephalus _ _ _ _ _ Wryneck, Red-throated Jynx ruficollis _ _ _ _ _

CES 89 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

APPENDIX A-6 SPECIALIST CURRICULUM VITAE

CES 90 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 91 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 92 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 93 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 94 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 95 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 96 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 97 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 98 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 99 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 100 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 101 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure Ecological Assessment Report February 2020

CES 102 Albany Wind Energy Facility & Grid Infrastructure